Corpy2

Corpy2

Joined on Jul 11, 2011

Comments

Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Corpy2: You can tell that she doesn't write articles for a paper, only take photos.
She doesn't realize that she is not supposed to disparage the one generation older model quite so much.

Yes, but one is supposed to do it gently. This was really bad. Especially when you consider that Canon was still selling the 7D as a "current" camera, for almost full price, until very recently (and may still be so selling it).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 10:47 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (495 comments in total)

You can tell that she doesn't write articles for a paper, only take photos.
She doesn't realize that she is not supposed to disparage the one generation older model quite so much.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 19:46 UTC as 134th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Corpy2: I haven't read every last fine detail, but it seems that they do not give you full credit for the rental cost if you decide to buy the rented item, only a portion of it.

That does not seem nice.

digiart, that;'s the whole point. They make money by selling the lens. People who buy a lens get no benefit from an additional week or whatever. If they are going to buy a lens, they will have it for far longer than that. That being the case, few will intentionally rent to buy. However, if people perceive it as a benefit, as a just in case, then the company may get far more people renting (and then perhaps buying, but more likely not). The company loses relatively little by selling the lens for a fair price after deducting the full rental fee.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2014 at 22:56 UTC

I haven't read every last fine detail, but it seems that they do not give you full credit for the rental cost if you decide to buy the rented item, only a portion of it.

That does not seem nice.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 23:20 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
On 15-ISO1000-DSC00481.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

Corpy2: At ISO 1000 the detail is lost.

I've looked at some other pictures from this camera. Your hands are fine, but I am seeing noise significantly higher than I do with the EM!, even at low ISO's. Not sure why that is so.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:29 UTC
On 15-ISO1000-DSC00481.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

Corpy2: At ISO 1000 the detail is lost.

well, 1/5 is pretty incredible even in 2014, so I would not blame detail getting lost. Let me check another shot at close to this ISO that is at a more reasonable shutter speed.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:36 UTC
On 15-ISO1000-DSC00481.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (12 comments in total)

At ISO 1000 the detail is lost.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 02:01 UTC as 1st comment | 11 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

Markol: I've been a huge fan of Jeff for many years but the final thoughts he put together destroy much of his reputation IMHO.
While I'm not at all against this camera, an enthusiast would never argue that he doesn't print large anyway so the inferior IQ is ok when going on a once in a lifetime holiday.
But amazon will be happy with the text, that's for sure.

Absolutely. That "I don't print" argument has been so discredited for such a long time, I'm surprised to see it resurface.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

Corpy2: This downsizing makes no sense to me. Throwing away 2/3 of the information from the 36 mp camera?

Noise is not everything. Otherwise I'd be shooting with my old Canon S100 camera from 2001, which has some pretty clean images.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 14:44 UTC

This downsizing makes no sense to me. Throwing away 2/3 of the information from the 36 mp camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 13:53 UTC as 134th comment | 5 replies
On Adobe leaks 'Lightroom Mobile' app article (212 comments in total)

Annual licensing? Another product I will not buy. The list grows longer...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2014 at 00:17 UTC as 41st comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Hands-on Preview preview (626 comments in total)

I'm not impressed with the images.

I have an rx100, so I'm not anti-Sony. But these images are just not sharp at all. When I click on Original, get the huge image, and then click on it once, I see lots of blur.

Am I the only one seeing this in various images?

What is it, the lens? I don't have this problem with my RX100

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 03:29 UTC as 79th comment

Sorry, but these don't look all that hot to me. I don't see great resolution, great sharpness, or anything.

I come from a background of Canon, 7D and Mark II, and I sold these and am now very satisfied with the quality of, of all things, an Olympus e-m5 m43 camera (with their good lenses, of course). These look worse than what I see fro that camera.

Am I missing something?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2012 at 11:47 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies

Olympus e-m5

When will DXO 7 support the ORF file of the new Olympus e-m5 camera?

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 02:14 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sabatia: In good light, the 100-300 takes quite good images. I've been surprised at how well the OIS works. I say this coming from years of working with Canon L prime teles on wildlife shooting. Again, I'm surprised at how many handheld shots zoomed in to 300 (equivalent to 600!) I've been getting that meet my sharpness and color richness standard. Nice to see Pana improving an already quite good product. Now if only they'd make a 200, 250, or 300 f4 or 2.8 prime, and--while I'm dreaming--if only they'd get a focusing system that would lock on to small moving distant subjects, at least as well as my former Canon mates.

I agree about the 100-300.

But Panasonic needs to still fix the 45-175. which I wrongly bought on the supposition that the firmware update fixed it. It did not.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2012 at 02:14 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)

I give up. I've been looking for a telephoto shot, and have gone through 15 random images. Still have not found one.

Is ther any telephoto shot in these pictures? If not, why not? If yes, why can't they be organized in some fashion so that I can find the one that is?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 12:06 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
On First Impressions: Using the Canon PowerShot S100 article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Odieinaz: IF DPR believes that it is necessary to test multiple S100s to determine whether observed IQ issues are related to early production units or non-representative samples, then should not this practice be done with all cameras? It now seems unfair to fault ANY camera for imperfect IQ without evaluating 3-5 samples. I understand that the S100 is a special interest camera among enthusiasts, but many camera models will have some sort of enthusiast following.

All the people that bought cameras badly out of spec, but who don't access DPR? Out of luck suckers, I guess?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2011 at 02:19 UTC
On Leica Announces V-Lux 3 superzoom article (131 comments in total)

Why? Why would Dpreview prepare a samples gallery for this camera?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2011 at 02:37 UTC as 34th comment
On Variation Facts and Fallacies article (231 comments in total)

... somewhere gets a truly bad camera or lens. It doesn’t happen frequently, but it happens. When it does, it isn't a subtle call; it's very obvious the lens is bad."

Not necessarily. One can have a lens that is significantly more out of spec than a "normal" lens, but not to the point that it is "very obvious." In fact, it is much more likely that a lens would be out of spec by a significant margin, but not "very obviously," than that it would be out of spec "very obviously," for several reasons:

1) Lenses that are "very obviously" out of spec are much more likely to be spotted and removed from distribution before they are, well, distributed.

2) Lenses that are only out of spec by a significant margin are more likely to occur than lenses that are "very obviously" out of spec, from a statistical perspective.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2011 at 22:59 UTC as 56th comment
On Fujifilm releases X-S1 premium EXR 26X superzoom article (383 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kai-Uwe Och: I am sure many owners will be disappointed because of unsharp pictures, when they try to use the 624mm tele setting in combination with those typicall stretched out arms! :-)

A 24 or 22mm lower end makes more sense for creative photography, than this crazy tele range!

The same disappointment people who buy a finder-less Panasonic camera will feel if they try to use a zoom lens too! :)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2011 at 16:20 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »