Andrys

Andrys

Lives in United States Berkeley, AK, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/andrys
Joined on Apr 7, 2003
About me:

Recent interest is in Yosemite, with 3 trips there in the last year. Most recent photos are in a Flickr stream at http://j.mp/flickr-andrys

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
On October 22nd to be a big day for tablets post (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

BigBen08: Let's not forget the new Samsung 10.1 2014 edition...

http://www.itechpost.com/articles/11629/20131011/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-2014-edition-now-available-u.htm

At least as important is a screen with stable viewability as you move your head (not true of any netbook I've tried) and very good color accuracy as well, not to even mention ability to use the full Photoshop and not a weakened version...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2013 at 22:42 UTC
On Monkey photo in brianj's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Love the expression and the hands, especially the left hand...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 06:56 UTC as 1st comment
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Review article (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

cheenachatze: According to the Canon specs, shots taken at Fine quality are about 3MB in size, and shots taken at Superfine quality are about 5MB in size. Were the studio shots taken at Fine quality or Superfine quality?

Continued --- to Barney.

I wasn't going to keep the SX260 until I saw for sure I could do better when needing to shoot in lower light with a long zoom, if I used the mode that keeps more data.

Canon did a good job on normal 'fine' but there is a very telling difference when we use the vaunted feature of that pocketable camera -- the zoom (which also means it loses some, over the SX230) -- that's where we see problems in low contrast and long zoom situations.

The Superfine mode noticeably helps in that situation and your review should have an addendum testing for this. I know it's more work and it's an unusual situation for DPreview not to really test the fine compression mode when it's there ! in a way that shows us what you find.

Please reconsider. It's made me lose some confidence in your testing, not that you missed the setting, but that you are deciding not to add to the review ANY word about this and any test results we can see. Print quality's important. Thks.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2012 at 08:21 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Review article (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

cheenachatze: According to the Canon specs, shots taken at Fine quality are about 3MB in size, and shots taken at Superfine quality are about 5MB in size. Were the studio shots taken at Fine quality or Superfine quality?

Barney, I just found your 'clarification' response, as it was not showing above the thread section divider. This way, of course many others will never have seen what you explained after people had chimed in with interest about the unnoticed mode.

This isn't testing the way DPreview is known for and especially not for comparison testing against the best modes of other cameras (!) nor is it thorough to leave out careful tests of two modes of the same camera.

I shot many pics with both modes, and in any *printing* the difference is fairly large and especially when using the zoom mode with lower light, which is what many do.
The image breaks up considerably with the default setting under tougher circumstances (long lens, lower light) and stays more solid with the Superfine setting.

The default lines in low contrast situations are not as solid as in Superfine and are more like cheese - the 100% images are degraded looking on anything at iso400 and above and zoomed in 40% even...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2012 at 08:10 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Review article (99 comments in total)

Barney, I enjoyed Jeff's original review and most of this one but realized that few know (I didn't at first, either) about the 'Superfine' option for more camera data (60% larger file as a result), and you mentioned not noticing and that you'd follow up. But the review still uses the comparison of the smaller default 'fine' compression mode file vs other camera makers' larger 60% larger files files (with presumably more data when using lower compression).

Both the image-quality comparisons and image-quality report itself are unchanged and some of it mentions disappointment. Wouldn't it be better to use the 'Superfine' capability when reporting on image quality and comparisons to other cameras? Thanks for considering this. I saw no follow up so am asking. Am enjoying it as a second, flexible small camera.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2012 at 01:31 UTC as 8th comment
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review article (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: Well, I agree with DPR on SILVER award. It really lacks a bit of hallmark to get pure GOLD award. And there are my personal CONS that makes it SILVER, not GOLD (Some of them were mentioned in DP review):

1. Full time focus (some would call it tracking focus or pre-focus) can't be turned OFF. Sometimes it does interfere for me. And I believe it doesn't extends battery life either.
2. Max shutter speed is only 1/2000s. Without built in ND filter and no filter threads 1/4000s is A MUST.
3. Annoying zoom in the stills preview mode. It goes too deep in to the picture instantly. And creates lagg, of course.
4. Separate folders for stills, MP4 and AVCHD.
5. No 720p video.
6. No pause during recording a video.

Some of them are annoying, but livable with.

And I disagree with DP about clickless front ring. Its perfect for video adjutments or MF.

In the other hand RX100 is an absolute joy to use. It now is my everyday companion. Highly recomended!

Odd. I use the sngle auto focus for a one time half-press on shutter and it sticks. I use autofocus *continuous* for constant tracking (good even for MY movement if shooting someething too close and movement hurts focus).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2012 at 11:40 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review article (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

nostromos: The canon S100 with better JPG IQ than Sony RX100??
Sorry, that can't be a serious rating!

if not the RX100 earned a gold award in its class, which camera then?

I own the RX100 and the IQ is outstandig, for such a compact camera.
My Nikon D300 and Oly E - P3 are getting dusty.

It does NOT have excessive noise reduction and smearing if you merely choose LOW NR instead of accepting default Normal. Very easy to do.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2012 at 11:32 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sam Carriere: One of the other sites drooling over this camera includes a promo that urges the gullible to "pre-order" now because the camera will be "back ordered" for a long time. In other words this is another Sony special that will have the reviewers jumping like lemmings even though they have never actually laid eyes on an RX100. Another site (Luminous Landscape) notes the RX100 does not even come with a manual -- either print or disk.
In other words, the RX100 is another piece of Sony hype, just like the NEX-7 -- and just as ignorable.
Some manufacturers respect consumers. Sony doesn't. It's a company that deserves to fail.

ADVANCED guide for RX100 for use online with working search function:
http://esupport.sony.com/docs/dvimag/DSCRX100_guide/en/contents/02/index.html

DOWNLOADABLE PDF of Advanced Guide (but search function doesn't work on this small PDF) - available here:
- http://www.datafilehost.com/download-a9ef796a.html

This is WAY beyond what the small booklet we got includes.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 14:47 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsaxon: Just got a new RX100 yesterday. It's nice but has what may be a deal-killer flaw. When you try to close-focus at anything but the widest angle the lens suddenly becomes very un-macro, forcing you to back way up. I don't know about you, but I consider it very important to be able to close-focus while being somewhat telephoto-ed out. For one thing, if you can only focus close at the widest angle setting you are right on top of whatever you're shooting and your shadow is on top of it. My Canon S95 has no problem doing macro with the telephoto, so I guess I'm spoiled. Honestly, the user-friendliness of the Canon trumps whatever advantages the Sony may have in Megapixels or aperture. ATTENTION, DP REVIEW: please tell us what the minimum focusing distances are at ALL ZOOM LEVELS. What good is it to have this super-detailed review if you're going to leave out something so essential?

But a macro when wide-open is pretty nice: as seen at http://www.f64.ro/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DSC00644-665x443.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

tbnl: Flickr is great. It's photo sharing that isn't cluttered by all the crud that is on facebook.

Flickr doesn't need any radical changes, just needs some TLC to tweak some things like being able to customize how the photostream looks and all that.

I use 3 hosting sites: PBase for simple, clean display at original size when wanted, flickr, and google+ (which improved on the horribly compressed picasaweb photo displays, the latter improving their display algorithms this week I noticed - no longer first downsizing each photo and then stretching it to desktop size).

Here's an example of the downside of Flickr and Google+'s two-wk experiments with 'liquid display' in which they adjusted everything
http://www.pbase.com/andrys/image/144232686

Flickr was the first to fix the problem, responding to users in a forum and giving a user the credit for the final decision. Google fixed theirs a wk later, w/o saying anything. I'm keeping up the sample so I can check on whether Google+ went back to the awful compression they had been doing.

I give flickr a lot of credit for talking in detail publicly w/ the users and deciding to no longer compress & then enlarge our medium-to-large images when displaying them on large monitors.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

tbnl: Flickr is great. It's photo sharing that isn't cluttered by all the crud that is on facebook.

Flickr doesn't need any radical changes, just needs some TLC to tweak some things like being able to customize how the photostream looks and all that.

In addition to the 'liquid display' they listened to us and offered the alternative feature of leaving photos up to 1024 x768 uploaded to be UNTOUCHED and not *stretched* as they were doing and which Google+ also tried for awhile, stretching -after- downsizing even. Both went back to leaving up to 1024 as-is so that the original detail comes thru'. Facebook's renditions don't retain the original detail, so I can't imagine why photogs would be happy with it as main display place.

I love flickriver.com ... try it. Also click on Users, to see your 'interesting' or 'sets' streamed one after another w/ no long loading time and against black and choose 'large' (or more) on the top left.

Also try 'Archived' -- if you leave Exif data when uploading you'll see your pics by year, month, day and in calendar format, with one pic representing each day you shot, and then a click will bring up all the photos you shot that day.

You can search all your photos by words in captions, tites or tags.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

tbower: As a Flickr user for seven years I would say that some improvement is in order. I think the social aspect of Flickr is important and as it is right now perfectly adequate. I would NOT want Flickr to compete with, or become another Facebook.

Most of my complaints are with the presentation of photos. That white background MUST go! Check out SmugMug for an example of what Flickr should be in that regard.

I have also noticed that Flickr has become slower....I'm not sure why. Also, Flickr has some odd rules on linking to external sites. I'm a musician as well as a photographer and tried to link to one of my songs on Soundclick which I have done in the past. Apparently, Flickr has added Soundclick to a banned list of sites....no explanation and the HELP section is worthless.

It also appears to me that Flickr doesn't listen or take seriously what users have to say about any aspect of the site. That will spell doom.

As Michael J Davis says, check out http://www.flickriver.com which displays your public flickr photos in a flowing stream at the size you choose. It's amazing.
Sorry to hear about things like the lack of linking to Soundclick.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 18:38 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

drumsultan: This camera looks great. I miss my old 35mm Rollie I carried in my pocket. I have a couple issues here. I have been comparing the sample images with the Olympus XZ -1. I have two things that may make me not reach for my wallet on the Sony.

1. I/Q the RX100 images seems soft to me compared to XZ -1. The XZ -1 colors look better as well.

2. Low light performance. The samples for the RX100 seem brighter on the low end.

I don't care about the price difference and I want to really pine for the Sony but it seems that it is missing something image wise. Maybe this is just a settings issue. I have read here that the noise reduction on the Sony causes such issues on their other models.

If anyone has information to clarify this chime in.

That flatter look is because not so much in-camera color saturation is done as it normally is in Cameras. Basic photo editing will just adjust that (as must be done with RAW images anyway).

Also, we're all used to the current situation of heavily overdone saturation being seen as 'good' these days.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 06:59 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

JesperMP: The sample image DSC01011 @ISO2500 looks just as good as or maybe a bit better than my S95 @ISO800. To me, it seems that RX100 delivers on the sensor IQ at high ISO.

Really excited about RX100. Shame I cant really justify replacing my S95 so soon.

Btw. I just hate it when people refer to RX100 or S95 or similar cameras as "point and shoot" cameras. It is a derogative term that does not acknowledge that these cameras gives you as much control as a "higher end" DSLR do. To my opinion RX100, S95 etc. are superior to the typical entry-level DSLR with the kit lens mounted.

Veducci,
JesperMP actually said that the image on the SonyRX100 at ISO 2500 was as good as, or a bit better than, images on his/her Canon S95 at ISO 800.

I have, and enjoy an S95 but will be getting the RX100.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 06:57 UTC
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14