BorisK1

BorisK1

Lives in United States West Bloomfield, MI, United States
Works as a Software engineer
Joined on May 7, 2004
About me:

Equipment:
Bodies: Olympus E-3, E300
Lenses: 11-22mm / 50mm / 14-45mm / 40-150mm (rev. I)
FL-36 flash
4:3/OM adapter
OM bodies: OM 4Ti, OM 4
OM lenses: 28mm 3.5 / 50mm 1.8 / 135mm 3.5
T32 flash
Pentax Optio 43wr (pretty much dead now)

Comments

Total: 154, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

Sorry, don't know if it's my browser or DPreview software. First it seemed like my "Post" button got stuck, then I got seven identical posts.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post - deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post -deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

double post- deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: I cannot understand why manufacturers do not use the larger sensor from the G series Canon or the Lumix LX 7 for example. The cameras would still be very pocketable (the zooms are only very modest anyway) and the IQ would be very substantially improved. These cameras are often the ones you have with you in wonderful unspoilt countryside with great landscape opportunities yet you are rewarded with images of such mediocre quality (even at ISO 100) that anything bigger than A4 is not contemplatable.

The "tough cams" are true marvels of miniaturization. Those lenses are in there sideways, with mirrors or prisms bending the light like a periscope, just so the lenses could fit into the box.
Larger sensors will not just mean slightly larger bodies. To get an optical path 50% wider (that's a 1 stop improvement), they'd need either a body that's 50% thicker, or to drop the whole concept of "periscope" optics and return to a protruding lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Summerhill: I want a waterproof camera to take kayaking, etc. I may drop it in the water,but won't be diving with it. I would like to have the highest quality pictures I can get in a compact...that can be dropped in the water.

Are there other cameras that I should consider?

What kind of kayaking? If it's open ocean or whitewater (and if you want to shoot without pulling off the sprayskirt), rugged cams are by far the most convenient, because they'd fit into a small PFD pocket. (I'd recommend Olympus for battery life and fast responses, or Panasonic TS-5 if video is a priority).

If it's lakes or calm rivers, or if you're okay with pulling the sprayskirt each time you need to take a picture, I'd go for a Sony RX 100 II or III in a waterproof case, or a Nikon AW.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 15:40 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marvol: As mentioned below, pity you didn't (couldn't, maybe) include the Nikon 1 system waterproof version.
Would have been great for two reasons:
1) does the larger sensor REALLY blow the rest out of the water (no pun intended) quality wise?
2) is the extra money worth spending for those that want a better all-round and more flexible underwater/rugged system?

@Marvol: "Rubbish" - nice of you to publish your real name!

Mr Rubbish, try to put that AW1 into a PFD/wetsuit/swimsuit pocket, attach it to a lanyard, or clip it to a harness. *Then* try doing something, you know, active. *While* taking pictures.

Even if you, mr. Rubbish, could fit it somewhere on your esteemed person, see how long it survives any real activity.

Or perhaps, mr. Rubbish, you could compare the outside dimensions of the two cameras without leaving the comfort of your favorite recycle bin:

Nikon AW 1, with 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 lens (leaving a generous 10 mm for the mount):
114 x 72 x 82 mm (4.47 x 2.81 x 3.23″)
Olympus TG-3:
112 x 66 x 31 mm (4.41 x 2.6 x 1.22″)

To summarize:
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS375x375~products/nikon_aw1/shots/472e6c08b2144ef0b6b2f1c259a464de.png
*This*, mr. Rubbish, is *not* a rugged cam.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS375x375~products/oly_tg3/shots/ed6755c107ef481083bffebb8f891558.png
*This* is a rugged cam.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 04:21 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marvol: As mentioned below, pity you didn't (couldn't, maybe) include the Nikon 1 system waterproof version.
Would have been great for two reasons:
1) does the larger sensor REALLY blow the rest out of the water (no pun intended) quality wise?
2) is the extra money worth spending for those that want a better all-round and more flexible underwater/rugged system?

Nikon AW 1 does not compete against "rugged cams". It's built for different scenarios.

A Nikon AW 1 should be compared against the likes of Sony RX100 III in a waterproof case.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 19:44 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

breth: It's about time one of the camera manufacturers puts out an environmentally sealed serious pocket-able compact with large sensor. For backpackers, rainy day streetshooters, and people working in tough conditions that want great IQ.
The more smartphones get better as cameras, and the more people tire of lugging their dslrs, this market should start to develop.

What's "GR-W"? Who makes it?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 16:03 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobias1234: Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before.
The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable. The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support. Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts - depending on the distance to the subject.

After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for.

Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3.

"If you are happy with this"...
Sure, they're snapshots, but I wouldn't have gotten them otherwise. I'd rather have *something* than nothing.
If I have time and energy, I'll pull my DSLR out of the backpack or a boat. But without a TG-1, I would've missed this:
http://images15.fotki.com/v1624/photos/2/214332/12354732/P8200231-vi.jpg
And this:
http://images108.fotki.com/v1623/photos/2/214332/12354732/P8200207-vi.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 15:18 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Serious underwater photography was always done with DSLRs tightly sealed in very expensive waterproof enclosures. But for underwater snapshots, these cameras are great.

This whole category ("underwater snapshot cameras") might disappear if the iPhone 6 is waterproof.

I suppose a waterproof tablet could be next?

The "rugged cams" aren't for serious underwater photography. They are more for "action snapshots" - when you're hanging off the cliff with one hand, and have a half-second to grab a quick snapshot with the other.
Or for hanging out at the beach.

Which camera would you rather have in a bar brawl? A DSLR in an Ikeliete housing or a TG-3?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:43 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)

One feature that the Pentax WG-3 used to have was wireless charging. That could be important on a tropical vacation, when you really, really don't want the island's humid air to get into the camera body.

Unfortunately, WG-4 lost it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:38 UTC as 52nd comment
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: 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.

The RX100III has a fold-up lens that's really, really difficult to make waterproof and rugged.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:35 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobias1234: Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before.
The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable. The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support. Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts - depending on the distance to the subject.

After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for.

Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3.

(part 3)
"After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for."

RX100 in a Meikon housing has three times the weight and seven times (!!!) the volume of a TG-2.

"Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3."

When a TG-2 is in your hand, while that Meikon housing is inside your backpack or boat because it's too bulky, it might as well be "lightyears" away for all the good it does you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:28 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobias1234: Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before.
The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable. The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support. Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts - depending on the distance to the subject.

After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for.

Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3.

(part 2)
" The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support."

They are *comparisons*. None of the cameras support raw, and the comparison clearly says so. What, exactly, do you not agree with?

" Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts"

Only if you don't know what you're doing. RAW processing can be a very useful tool, but too many people use it as a crutch to compensate for their own lack of thinking.

" - depending on the distance to the subject."
*Color cast* depends on the distance to the subject? Hmm.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:28 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobias1234: Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before.
The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable. The JPEG engine was also one of the bad ones.

I can not agree to the 2013 and this new 2014 comparison, because there is one really important feature which is a must for UW photography: RAW support. Without RAW the pictures will have heavy false colours and the UW programs will lead brownish or blueish color casts - depending on the distance to the subject.

After my bad experiences with the compact UW cameras, I tried a RX100 in a cheap housing (Meikon). The quality differences to the candidates is so big, that I can't understand what cameras like a TG-2/TG-3 are good for.

Even a cheap Canon S95 in a cheap Meikon housing (my backup) is lightyears away from UW cameras like a TG-2/TG-3.

"Last year I tried the Olympus TG-2 which was one of the 2013 recommendations. I was really shocked about the bad image quality compared to any other camera (e.g. S95, TZ10, RX100, FZ38, some mFT-Bodies) I have used before."

How about "other camera in its class"? As far as I know, RX100's image quality deteriorates if you step on it.

"The lens of the TG-2 is fast, but it's so soft that open wide is unusable."
There's just one iris step in TG-1/2/3. Below that, "stepping down" really means engaging the 3-stop ND filter.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:27 UTC
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shellblower: Absolutely agree. I am really wondering why the camera developers are not able to get something like a Canon S120 in a waterproof case. Why do not add Wifi in combination with a water sealed charging cable and nobody needs to stress seals of the battery and card doors anymore. End-User-Life could be so easy.

The image quality of the outdoors compacts seems to be a class of it own for no known reason. Even today's smartphones deliver better IQ in moste of the situations. Strange.

"I am really wondering why the camera developers are not able to get something like a Canon S120 in a waterproof case."
Because of the lens. The S120 has a lens that extends out of the case by a couple of inches when the camera is on. The rugged cams use optics with periscope-type folded light paths to keep the lens inside the camera body, which severely limits the lens parameters, and hence, the image quality.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (634 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay Williams: What's a 1.5"-type sensor? That's a bizarre bit of writing.

Still, I enjoyed and appreciated the review.

Um, I think I see the problem now.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
Total: 154, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »