Chris Crevasse

Chris Crevasse

Lives in United States TN, United States
Joined on Oct 14, 2005

Comments

Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
On Sony Cyber-shot RX1R Samples Gallery Expanded! article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vladik: Pretty amazing photo quality. I want one :)

How, I have used the RX1 since January, including in dim-light, high-ISO situations. I've never noticed the banding of which you speak. My internet searching also failed to uncover samples of the banding or even mention of it in any of the many RX1 reviews. If such banding is easily created and undisputed, one would think there would be evidence of it somewhere. But if there is, I can't find it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 12:25 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot RX1R Samples Gallery Expanded! article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vladik: Pretty amazing photo quality. I want one :)

How, can you show us an example of this easily-recreated banding?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 15:36 UTC
On Is this the new Leica 'Mini M'? article (370 comments in total)

The writing on the front of the lens looks Photoshopped to me. Between that and the lame specifications, I suspect this is a hoax.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2013 at 19:07 UTC as 165th comment
In reply to:

Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.

R. Butler is mistaken. DOF is the same, within small percentages, for all focal lengths given the same aperture, framing, and sensor size. If anything, a wider lens shot close to a target will give slightly greater DOF than a longer lens shot farther away from the target. This can be confirmed by the DOF calculator of your choice. I agree with Zdman that the background and foreground will appear different with different focal lengths, but the DOF will effectively be the same.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.

"Have you taken the DoF into account? A 35mm must be shot closer to the scene, which gives a shallower DoF. Since the test setup isn't flat, you get larger areas out of focus."

Not true, unless the aperture varies. Given the same aperture, framing (without cropping), and sensor size, the DOF of all focal lengths is the same.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 12:43 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review article (546 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I just handled a Sony RX1 again this afternoon. And I was reminded of a big annoyance: To mount a filter, say simply to protect the lens, one needs to purchase 180usd lens shade/filter mount.

Not cool, how like Leica, and well the RX100 which doesn't have an official filter mounting system. (Yes, I know there's an after market one that can be glued in place.)

HowaboutRAW, the lens on the RX1 has filter threads. No special device comes with the RX1 or needs to be purchased to allow you to mount a filter (or a hood, or a step-up ring, or anything else) with 49mm threads. I have a 49mm threaded filter mounted on mine, and no special equipment was required to accomplish that. And I would say it is extraordinarily unlikely that some RX1s have filter threads, and some don't.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 14:24 UTC
On Sony NEX-6 Hands-on Preview preview (229 comments in total)

Moderator, it is impossible to tell which of the Panasonic or Sony RX cameras you have chosen in the "Compared to" pull-downs. Please either expand the pull-downs or eliminate the "Lumix" and "Cybershot" names from the camera titles. They're not needed anyway. Thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 21:10 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply

Thanks for the link, dpreview, and for the other valuable information you provide.

Because it strikes me as odd that Canon would make a pancake lens apparently designed for full-frame cameras when their current full-frame cameras are not at all small, is this new lens perhaps an indication that Canon has a compact, full-frame, mirrorless camera (in other words, my ideal camera) in the works?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2012 at 21:01 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8