dpr4bb

dpr4bb

Joined on Feb 2, 2014

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1172 comments in total)

Some of the comments here are so crass, they border on hooliganism. I trust that the DPR team will not be unduly influenced by them.
Many thanks, again, for taking the time and the effort to bring us the DR comparison in this review. The technical depth that this type of analysis brings to the reviews here is indeed very much appreciated. Please keep up the good work.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 02:21 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1172 comments in total)
In reply to:

Coyote_Cody: I wonder if Canon is stuck in the:

'video too sharp (GH4/etc) looks too non-film like', so we make our video low rez and low detail & colors weak to approximate the old mostly low rez video film of Yesteryear ?

You think ?

Canon needs better DSPs and better video algorithms - very obvious to most of us.

I respect Canon for many things, but living with head in sand or in the past is NOT one of them !!

They are too fine of a company to be this neglectful of video and many other features that are missing in their cams - all/most of their cams - they have the money - they should use it for development !!

Plz pleasantly surprise us/me Canon in 2015 !!

Coyote_Cody wrote: "Canon needs better DSPs and better video algorithms - very obvious to most of us."

This reminds me... The iPhone 6 camera appears to be punching way above its weight class. I haven't seen any rigorous analysis to suggest one way or the other, but might it be that despite years of head start with something that is a core competency for their business, traditional camera makers like Canon have now decisively fallen behind companies like Apple in image/video processing expertise?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 04:42 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1172 comments in total)
In reply to:

locke_fc: Wow, so we're finding out just now that less DR equals less ability to lift the shadows??

Amazing.

Rishi, many thanks to you and the rest of the DPR team for putting in the time and the effort to bring us the DR comparison in this review. Some of the crass commentary here might falsely suggest otherwise, but the technical depth that this type of analysis brings to the reviews is indeed greatly appreciated.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 04:05 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1172 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stefan Keller: your drawings of the AF points are made as a photographer would make the Layout of the AF-Points,
but Canon made a gap between the 3 "blocks",
which is a bit annoying selecting the right point
and cuts of the AF-point expansion at one side when selecting a point beneath this gap :-(

This is a very good point. The gaps are rather large, too. And they fall right on top of the rule-of-thirds vertical lines.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 01:53 UTC
On High-end full frame roundup (2014) article (539 comments in total)
In reply to:

///M: Sony A7R- "â—¾Lack of uncompressed Raw" - what is the point then?

Luckily, for regular readers of these comments, HowaboutRAW has made some falsifiable statements that have been readily proven false by independently available evidence, so his/her jig is up. Sadly, the incessant drone of his/her unsupported claims continue to muddy the waters for unsuspecting casual readers.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 15:40 UTC

Rishi, thank you so much for taking the time and addressing so many questions and comments.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 14:17 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (646 comments in total)

As far as I'm concerned, the only step forward that would have meant anything would have been a better sensor with better dynamic range and better high-ISO performance. The facts presented in this review leave no room for doubt. This sensor is no better than the V2/J3 sensor. And they are both behind Sony's 1"-inch type sensor. So DxO was right after all, and we're still stuck with visible noise in the shadows at base ISO. The V2 was fast enough already. Can we get better IQ now?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 02:56 UTC as 40th comment
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

MFiftysomething: I had V1 and now have V2, which I like but Nikon has given me no reason to upgrade to V3. A system also needs lenses and while there are a couple of nice ones, it is just not enough choice, competiton is so good all round these days, Nikon need to wake up.

HowaboutRAW:

Is there any evidence that supports your claim that the V3 sensor is as good as the Sony sensor?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 04:40 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

MFiftysomething: I had V1 and now have V2, which I like but Nikon has given me no reason to upgrade to V3. A system also needs lenses and while there are a couple of nice ones, it is just not enough choice, competiton is so good all round these days, Nikon need to wake up.

HowaboutRAW:

The PB test shots are almost useless for a proper controlled comparison to V2/J3. The IR test shots use a much better lens for the V3 than they do for the ones from V2 and J3. The V2 and J3 test shots at IR look awful, by the way.

The DPR test shots will be the only ones that will do the trick, if they use the same lens as before.

Because of the DxO results and some of the V3 shots that I've seen here and there, including samples from Nikon, I have my doubts about the V3 sensor being in the same ballpark as the Sony one, but if objective evidence shows that it is, then that would be really nice.

DxO sensor scores are what they are, but what I care about are their measurement results, which are objective and useful for comparing sensors. I recommend that you read what IR says about DxO:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/dxomark/dxomark.htm

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 23:21 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

MFiftysomething: I had V1 and now have V2, which I like but Nikon has given me no reason to upgrade to V3. A system also needs lenses and while there are a couple of nice ones, it is just not enough choice, competiton is so good all round these days, Nikon need to wake up.

MFiftysomething:
The only improvement over the V2 that would be worth anything for me would be a better sensor with better high-ISO performance. Something in the ballpark of Sony's 1"-type sensor would be great.
Aside from unsubstantiated and dubious claims, I have seen no objective evidence that the V3 sensor has better high-ISO performance than the V2 one. I'm eagerly waiting for DPR to publish RAW files for test shots from their new studio scene to get a good idea about the high-ISO performance of the V3 sensor. DxO's measurement results have not been very encouraging, I'm afraid.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 17:48 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)

Well, the JPEG engine seems to have improved, thankfully, over the V2/J3 generation, but has the sensor? Please, DPR, when can we see the new studio scene test shots and download the raw files?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 14:59 UTC as 71st comment
In reply to:

Rooru S: No longer listed in Canon USA huh? Interesting...

@tkbslc:
Interestingly, the two EF-M lenses released in the US are still listed on the Canon USA web site. If they disappear, though, ...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

dpr4bb: Is a switch of the Rebel DSLR series to mirror-less imminent?

@rrccad:
Good point! So many of the pieces have slowly been coming together, though. It sure seems as though Canon can just flip a switch whenever they think it's time and they're there.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 21:35 UTC

Is a switch of the Rebel DSLR series to mirror-less imminent?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 21:15 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon 1 V3: Real-world Sample Images article (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aspenz: Don't like it, don't buy it, simple as.

The IQ is pretty decent and high iso has improved. I've never seen a difference between the M43 and N1 images anyway apart from iso, and it's more or less equal now. If anything, the Olympus cameras have sharpening haloes and M43 in general has poor rendition of highlights. It's funny when the M43 crowd equate themselves with APS-C or worse still FF, when there clearly is a difference.

And as good as these are they're still jpegs. If you know what you're doing with the raw files there's lots of details to be gotten.

Yes, I completely agree that their *overall* sensor score is not particularly useful. What's your opinion on the usefulness of the other sensor scores and the detailed measurement results?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 21:21 UTC
On Olympus Tough TG-3 real-world samples gallery article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: I really have to chuckle when I read some of the comments here. It goes to show that all of us "see things differently." I personally think that the Nikon and Olympus tough cameras "trounce" the Canon D30. To me, the Canon D30's images look smeared - no detail at all. Of all 3 of the touch cameras shown here, I'd have to say that I would go first for the Olympus, but I'd be happy with the Nikon as a very tight second. But the next guy may disagree - and that's life.

But it's interesting (and sometimes hilarious) to view how folks look at images - which can often be a result of the monitors they view them on, the calibration involved, if any, and a wide variety of variables could come into play - not to mention vision in general and personal IQ standards.

I looked at a few of the landscape photos at base ISO. I agree that the D30 photos look less detailed, but even at 50% view, results from the Canon are the only ones that look like photos. The rest look like watercolor paintings, the WG-4 a little less so. I had never looked at these rugged cameras before. Yuck!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 18:18 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: Real-world Sample Images article (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aspenz: Don't like it, don't buy it, simple as.

The IQ is pretty decent and high iso has improved. I've never seen a difference between the M43 and N1 images anyway apart from iso, and it's more or less equal now. If anything, the Olympus cameras have sharpening haloes and M43 in general has poor rendition of highlights. It's funny when the M43 crowd equate themselves with APS-C or worse still FF, when there clearly is a difference.

And as good as these are they're still jpegs. If you know what you're doing with the raw files there's lots of details to be gotten.

@HowaboutRAW
Saying that DxO *sensor* scores should quantify anything other than sensor performance is clearly a viewpoint. DxO measurements quantify sensor performance, not overall image quality.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 17:40 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: Real-world Sample Images article (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aspenz: Don't like it, don't buy it, simple as.

The IQ is pretty decent and high iso has improved. I've never seen a difference between the M43 and N1 images anyway apart from iso, and it's more or less equal now. If anything, the Olympus cameras have sharpening haloes and M43 in general has poor rendition of highlights. It's funny when the M43 crowd equate themselves with APS-C or worse still FF, when there clearly is a difference.

And as good as these are they're still jpegs. If you know what you're doing with the raw files there's lots of details to be gotten.

@HowaboutRAW
Thanks for shedding light on your viewpoint.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 15:57 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: Real-world Sample Images article (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aspenz: Don't like it, don't buy it, simple as.

The IQ is pretty decent and high iso has improved. I've never seen a difference between the M43 and N1 images anyway apart from iso, and it's more or less equal now. If anything, the Olympus cameras have sharpening haloes and M43 in general has poor rendition of highlights. It's funny when the M43 crowd equate themselves with APS-C or worse still FF, when there clearly is a difference.

And as good as these are they're still jpegs. If you know what you're doing with the raw files there's lots of details to be gotten.

@DarkShift
Do keep in mind that appreciating the DXO measurement results requires an actual understanding of what things like DR and SNR mean...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 15:29 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: Real-world Sample Images article (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aspenz: Don't like it, don't buy it, simple as.

The IQ is pretty decent and high iso has improved. I've never seen a difference between the M43 and N1 images anyway apart from iso, and it's more or less equal now. If anything, the Olympus cameras have sharpening haloes and M43 in general has poor rendition of highlights. It's funny when the M43 crowd equate themselves with APS-C or worse still FF, when there clearly is a difference.

And as good as these are they're still jpegs. If you know what you're doing with the raw files there's lots of details to be gotten.

@HowaboutRAW: What will one see if one looks? Do tell.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 06:04 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »