thx1138

thx1138

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Senior Researcher - Canon Australia
Joined on Jul 17, 2004
About me:

Canon 1D X, 5D III, 17-40 f/4L, 45 f/2.8 TS-E, Sigma 50 f/1.4 Sigma 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2L, Canon 100 f/2.8L IS macro, 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II, 300 f/2.8L IS, 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS, 500 f/4L IS mk II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, 600 EX, Sigma 24 f/1.8 EX, Canon 24-7 f/2.8 mk II, Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro EX HSM DG

Comments

Total: 556, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (724 comments in total)
In reply to:

B1ackhat: Sony has produced yet another excellent pocket cam ... with the same problems as its predecessors (awful IS, poor color accuracy, less malleable RAWs, etc.). I ditched my RX100 when I had paid $550, but just picked up another for $280. I would gladly pay $800 for the M3 if they could fix those same damn problems, but until then, I'll just wait until I can snag one for $400.

You certainly wouldn't use ISO 3200 even if shooting RAW except when you had no choice. ISO 1600 would be about it's limit. It's about 1.33 stops worse at higher ISO than the G1X II and I'd normally take that no higher than ISO 3200. Also about 1 stop worse than Oly E-M5, except chroma only about 0.5 stops worse.

As for lens comparing to the G1X II it's softer everywhere in the frame. According to this test scene new lens does no better than old lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 02:32 UTC

Is LR 5.5 via the CC subscription in any way different to standalone LR 5.5. I suspect not, but just want to be sure. Also if you got the CC subscription for LS and LR does it install alongside an existing LR 5.5 installation?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 02:30 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Photo-Wiz: For my business I bought Microsoft's subscription plan which is $100 a year. But it is tax deductible, includes lots of useful programs for my work, and allows very flexible use on various mobile and desk devices.

But when it comes to photography, I'm just a hobbyist. I've used LR since the first version, and now use LR5. But as a hobbyist, I'm not about to pay $120 a year now, and $240 a year later for the privilege of using LR. I'll stick to LR5 and leave it at that. If some interesting development comes along, I'll start looking at the competition.

Trouble is down the track when you get a new camera and Adobe doesn't offer RAW support for it without upgrading to the newest LR.
Luckily there are number of excellent RAW converters thesedays, so if LR goes cloud only I'll jump ship.

The only thing is in Australia PS when available as a standalone was insanely expensive, something like $1500 for a long time and was still closer to $1K last time I looked. So the subscription model for PS is a massive saving, even though the idea of not owning the software galls me, but still no one has stepped up to the plate with a good PS alternative (and yes I've used GIMP and hate it).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 02:19 UTC
In reply to:

Garp2000: How is 9,99$ = 12,29€? Did they use Adobe Flash to convert currencies?

Wow, even in Australia the land dedicated to being ripped off, Adobe is also only charging us 9.99AUD pm, which is actually 9.40USD pm. We are getting it cheaper than USA! Holy cr@p batman.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 02:11 UTC

So this is a US only phone? Obviously it wouldn't come to Australia, but what about the UK for example.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 22:52 UTC as 45th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

thx1138: This is interesting, as the Canon lens group has been asking Canon for years to develop a curved sensor to simplify lens design. Another case of woulda coulda shoulda Canon.

It's not a claim.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 02:45 UTC
In reply to:

TN Args: Inspired by curved TV panels.....

No, inspired by fundamental physics!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: This is interesting, as the Canon lens group has been asking Canon for years to develop a curved sensor to simplify lens design. Another case of woulda coulda shoulda Canon.

Yes and I should have aid they've been asking the Canon sensor group.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 00:36 UTC

This is interesting, as the Canon lens group has been asking Canon for years to develop a curved sensor to simplify lens design. Another case of woulda coulda shoulda Canon.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 00:23 UTC as 155th comment | 4 replies
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (226 comments in total)

This will be a race to the bottom and hopefully literally and not metaphorically. Send them all to Davy Jones' locker I say!

I reckon you should have thrown in the Nikon AW1 as a reference just to see how the tiny sensored jpg only monstrosities compare, not that the AW1 is without issues.

Sony needs to make an UW version of the RX100III.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 07:19 UTC as 72nd comment | 7 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

snegron2: Beautiful design, great lens, but like the FZ-50 (which I still own) the details look smeared. In the studio comparison section check out the green blades of grass (or feathers?). The smeared details at ISO 400 are very similar to what my old FZ50 would produce. As I mentioned here when I wrote about my FZ50, I wish I had the technical expertise to swap out the FZ50's sensor with that of a better performing sensor. Even my old LX3 could out-resolve my FZ-50. This time around I think I can get equal or better results from my mirrorless G5.

I think you would need low standards to use ISO 3200 on the Panny or Sony

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2014 at 10:40 UTC
On DxOMark Mobile report: Samsung Galaxy S5 post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

natna: "Noise levels are well controlled in low-light, albeit then with a noticeable loss of detail."

hahahahahahahhaha

LOL.

Low light IQ is still embarrassing no matter how they sugar coat it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 22:35 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

snegron2: Beautiful design, great lens, but like the FZ-50 (which I still own) the details look smeared. In the studio comparison section check out the green blades of grass (or feathers?). The smeared details at ISO 400 are very similar to what my old FZ50 would produce. As I mentioned here when I wrote about my FZ50, I wish I had the technical expertise to swap out the FZ50's sensor with that of a better performing sensor. Even my old LX3 could out-resolve my FZ-50. This time around I think I can get equal or better results from my mirrorless G5.

Checking the RAW's, both the Sony and Panasonic seem soft right across the test scene. The panny seems softer on the LHS than RHS. Compare it to say an OMD E-M5 say and the difference in detail is very large. But that also applies to the RX10 as well.
Noise is very evident at ISO 800 too and I'd avoid going any higher which is disappointing IMO, as ISO 1600 is not pretty. The jpg engine sucks and I wouldn't use jpg on this camera in a pink fit.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

Freestyler: If Panasonic had of managed a 600mm constant aperture f/2.8, and USB3, it would be the perfect 'Bridge' or 'Superzoom'.

As it is, it's darn impressive anyway..... 1/16000th Shutter Speed you say!

Yeah and would only weigh 2kg and cost 4x as much. Still cheap and light compared to a 600 f/4 FF lens, and if it had good IQ I'd consider it as an addition to my DSLR kit for wildlife work.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 05:55 UTC
In reply to:

EthanP99: Just so we're clear, f4 is now considered "fast lens" ?

@400mm yes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 05:52 UTC
On Nikon Coolpix AW120 real-world samples gallery article (13 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoguy622: Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.

@ DStudio, even my blind grandmother could tell those jpg's are utter garbage. They are basically smartphone quality and only look reasonable at browser size. The full size images are just pathetic and Nikon should feel embarrassed. Even at low ISO detail is smeared into oblivion. It fails in and out of the water, but this is is pretty much the case with every single UW camera based on crapulent tiny 1/2.33" sensors and second rate optics combined with fourth rate jpg engines.

All we need if for Sony to release an UW version of the RX100 and they'll own the market.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 22:54 UTC

LR is a very easy tool to learn and I can get output from LR with much less effort than other converters I've tried such as DxO, and C1 Pro. Also flagging, keywording, cataloging are very intuitive.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2014 at 22:39 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: It's funny when you first hear of someone at their retirement. I never knew fake Chuck existed.

Ken Rockwell is an Alien working out of Area 51.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 9, 2014 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

Fox Fisher: I feel sorry that I discovered his blog way too late. Glad to see someone who speaks the truth about Nikon & Canon loudly. I thank him for speaking the truth out loud and wish him a good life.

Alas Sony escaped his wrath, but back then they were a nobody in the DSLR market. Actually they still are a nobody in the DSLR market, with all pretenders having been driven off to mirrorless to survive.

Always a good read and too bad he's moving on.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 9, 2014 at 22:37 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (717 comments in total)

dpreview clearly sets the bar low on AF performance. Not one of those frames is acceptably sharp on the face. Sure the hat is acceptably sharp in quite a few and it's clear the AF has been caught out focusing on the front of the hat not the face.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 23:22 UTC as 92nd comment | 4 replies
Total: 556, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »