Alphoid

Joined on Jun 24, 2011

Comments

Total: 219, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

alcaher: how much does it cost to produce a Medium Format size sensor?

That underestimates the cost. Very big silicon is much more expensive. Step-and-repeats, as the name implies, don't expose the whole wafer. At the time it was introduced, APS was the largest size a stepper could handle. FF required careful alignment between two steppings -- a complex and expensive process. Given that lithography equipment is made by the same companies that make cameras, I'd guess that issue was fixed for full frame, but I'd be genuinely surprised if we could make medium and large format sensors without similar significant additional costs.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 20:07 UTC
In reply to:

Eleson: Anyone else than me that is a bit surprised with the flange diameter?
(I hesitate to use the word disappointed as I'm not even close to being in the market for this one.)
But it seems to be designed around the sensor size, which leaves no or very little room for a camera with a larger sensor at a later stage.
To me, it seems a bit shortsighted from an MF manufacturer.

A flange can be smaller than the sensor, and still work, especially for shorter focal lengths and narrower apertures. Medium format doesn't lend itself well to super-fast lenses. But yes, that did strike me as odd.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: Honestly, I think it hurts your branding. It's good to have a distinct brand. White-on-black may be very 1990, but you just went to 100% generic.

Have you considered a more artistic scheme? You can do very nice things with off-whites, which have better readability than white, and also help establish a unique feel and brand.

I'd just avoid the generic high-tech white-and-blue.

@Simon That's exactly one of the things that makes you guys so great. But the new branding doesn't convey that. You want to look like many things, but "corporate high-tech marketing-driven" isn't one of them. Copying them isn't the way to go.

Go to hp.com, ibm.com, microsoft.com, and similar, and then do something different and you'll be okay. For a model, try a university web site, an artist's web site, the New Yorker, or similar. Something that conveys artistic and thoughtful.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: Honestly, I think it hurts your branding. It's good to have a distinct brand. White-on-black may be very 1990, but you just went to 100% generic.

Have you considered a more artistic scheme? You can do very nice things with off-whites, which have better readability than white, and also help establish a unique feel and brand.

I'd just avoid the generic high-tech white-and-blue.

@arbux You have a very naive view of web design. There are very few sites which are built around usability and ergonomics. Most are build around brand development and advertising. There will be graphic designers and UX people in the loop, but in most cases, sales and marketing is calling the shots. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of web sites even have ergonomics experts.

If you'd like to see products built by experts in readability and ergonomics, something like an ebook reader is a better example, as are professionally typeset documents.

If you'd like DPReview built around branding, that's fair, but my argument was that DPReview's brand shouldn't be generic high-tech (which has come to be associated with cool colors, especially blue). A stronger brand would appeal to conservative photographers, artists, and similar as well (which lends itself a bit more to warmer colors).

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 18:30 UTC

Honestly, I think it hurts your branding. It's good to have a distinct brand. White-on-black may be very 1990, but you just went to 100% generic.

Have you considered a more artistic scheme? You can do very nice things with off-whites, which have better readability than white, and also help establish a unique feel and brand.

I'd just avoid the generic high-tech white-and-blue.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 17:45 UTC as 200th comment | 5 replies
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (776 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: This camera makes me sad. Every town needs a jester. We seem to have lost ours today. At least based on the initial impressions, it's a plausible camera. From Hasselblad.

I really must say I was hoping for a rebranded Leica D-Lux (typ 109).

That was a decade ago. Since then, most of the things Hassy shipped -- not just the rebranded Sonys, were overpriced jewelry -- cameras with poor specs at high prices.

This appears to be a return to such serious cameras. The price is also sensible. Leaf shutter alone might be worth that price for many photographers.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 17:49 UTC
On article Remembering Fan Ho: 1931-2016 (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: Did not know him. Great B&W photographs.
I would like to see more of this kind of articles here!

I also did not know him. I looked at his work and was blown away.

I wanted to repeat the request for more articles like this -- of the articles on dpreview in this past few months, this was by far the most worthwhile.

I learned a lot from this.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (776 comments in total)

This camera makes me sad. Every town needs a jester. We seem to have lost ours today. At least based on the initial impressions, it's a plausible camera. From Hasselblad.

I really must say I was hoping for a rebranded Leica D-Lux (typ 109).

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 12:16 UTC as 94th comment | 2 replies
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (455 comments in total)

I'm hoping it will be a Leica D-LUX (Type 109) with a Hasselblad sticker. That'd just be awesome.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 20:58 UTC as 203rd comment
On article Fast telezoom: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 sample images (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: I really don't see a point to this crop circle lens, when the 85mm F/1.4 ART is on the way. Sorry, but the days of APS-C are coming to a close.

@JT26 The gap isn't closing. It's just becoming irrelevant. FF are improving as fast as APS. It's just that beyond some point, it doesn't matter anymore.

This is coming from someone who has a full frame camera in a drawer, and does most shooting with an LX100.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2016 at 14:46 UTC
On article Fast telezoom: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 sample images (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: I really don't see a point to this crop circle lens, when the 85mm F/1.4 ART is on the way. Sorry, but the days of APS-C are coming to a close.

I've gone in the other direction. I most frequently use 1" and 3/4" sensor nowadays. The full frame comes out, but not nearly as often as it used to. f/1.8-2.8 zoom lenses, improved dynamic range, resolution, and high ISO have all meant I don't need FF most of the time.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 19:48 UTC
On article Fast telezoom: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 sample images (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

p5freak: Another lens the world doesnt need, just like the 200-500 f2.8. Big, heavy, APS-C only, no IS, expensive. You're better off with the Tamron 85mm f1.8 VC. Its for FF, lighter, smaller, less expensive, and has IS. If you can live with its only limitation, its a prime.

Pentax or Alpha mount (if Sigma decides to add support) gives stabilization.

Tamron lenses also aren't in the same class -- in any way -- as the Sigma Art series.

But yes, the size and weight is a concern, and I'd probably prefer an 85mm f/1.4.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Pentax, the only brand that when guessing the price after reading the specs, I always go over.

Sigma also does make a 50-100mm f/1.8. If you just glue the zoom ring in place, you'll have a 100mm f/1.8 prime. Odds are image quality will be similar to prime as well. Most of the zooms under 2x are same image quality as a prime (I'm thinking of the Sigma 18-35mm and the Tokina 11-16mm), and all of the lenses in Sigma's art series have been spectacular.

But it is huge.

My experience is you have different lens selection whenever you switch systems, but not necessarily worse. Those lenses on Pentax will be stabilized. On Nikon, they won't.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Pentax, the only brand that when guessing the price after reading the specs, I always go over.

Sigma has nice Pentax lenses as well.

Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed Sigma didn't extend their mount change service to more lenses. They have all the lenses I need, more-or-less, but none of the lenses I want support that service. If they had it for all lenses, and some kind of bulk discount (convert everything I have from e.g. Pentax to Sigma mount), it'd be a pretty safe bet to go for the best body, and 100% Sigma lenses.

I don't think I'd ever use the service in practice, mind you, but it would give me the warm fuzzies.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 02:24 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Pentax, the only brand that when guessing the price after reading the specs, I always go over.

Meh. Pentax could ship a $500 full frame camera with 200 AF points, 100% magnification viewfinder, IBIS, 12FPS, rated to 200 feet underwater, with a telepathic interface where it does exactly what you want, and still no one would review or buy one.

I mean seriously. Why would any dSLR owner or reviewer consider something that's not Canon or Nikon?

Plus, I'm sure not being Canon or Nikon, they can't have any decent lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 22:44 UTC

From the image, it looks like one side is unprotected. USB connectors dent easily.

If the image is accurate, I'll pass.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 01:55 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

tangbunna: Believe me, it is not worth a saving for this aperture size with manual focus. You may try focus assist to adjust the finest of focus every time. It will waste your time + you may expect out of focus up to 70% chances.

More over you bought A7 series at premium price for advanced focus ability but if you use this lens for being save money, it will just downgrade your high-end camera and waste your money.

you buy it unless you have extremely old camera that you may not wish to upgrade to a newer FE-mount body and don't want to waste much money on expensive lens.

@Max The Sony dSLT cameras had wonderful demo videos with autofocus for things like tracking bicycles and motorcycles. I don't know whether reality matches demos, but if so, you could do things with autofocus around action sports you really wouldn't be able to do with manual or any other way.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 05:34 UTC
In reply to:

tangbunna: Believe me, it is not worth a saving for this aperture size with manual focus. You may try focus assist to adjust the finest of focus every time. It will waste your time + you may expect out of focus up to 70% chances.

More over you bought A7 series at premium price for advanced focus ability but if you use this lens for being save money, it will just downgrade your high-end camera and waste your money.

you buy it unless you have extremely old camera that you may not wish to upgrade to a newer FE-mount body and don't want to waste much money on expensive lens.

@futurewah I agree that putting a figure there is incorrect. I also agree that autofocus would never be used in professional film production. However, in the same way as studio photography is just one type of professional photography, film is just one type of professional video.

Film/cinema/most TV mean:

1. Controlled environment. You know what the actors will do ahead of time.
2. Hundreds of pounds of equipment, potentially.
3. High $$$ per minute video

Many professionals work in settings which aren't like that. Now, while you're welcome to define those away as "unprofessional" (as most professional film people I know have done), that's not fair. Professional refers to whether something is a profession -- a main source of livelihood. Many non-film settings are just as challenging as film -- just for different reasons (in much the same way as bird photography, wedding photography, and studio product shots are all completely different).

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

tangbunna: Believe me, it is not worth a saving for this aperture size with manual focus. You may try focus assist to adjust the finest of focus every time. It will waste your time + you may expect out of focus up to 70% chances.

More over you bought A7 series at premium price for advanced focus ability but if you use this lens for being save money, it will just downgrade your high-end camera and waste your money.

you buy it unless you have extremely old camera that you may not wish to upgrade to a newer FE-mount body and don't want to waste much money on expensive lens.

@dulynoted Incorrect. Manual focus is better for video 90% of the time. 10% of the time, autofocus is better. This includes some times when video is unstaged (think photojournalism, home videos, and similar), and some kinds of action shots (think focus following a moving motorcycle).

I've never used autofocus in high-quality videos, but there are some people who do. Rare, but not 0%.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2016 at 03:47 UTC
On article Motorola Moto X Force / Droid Turbo 2 camera review (49 comments in total)

It'd be nice to have a Compared To (and specifically in this case, the Xperia Z series, which is more waterproof, less drop-proof, and has a camera with very similar paper specs).

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 10:37 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 219, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »