attila_feher

attila_feher

Lives in Romania Bucharest, Romania
Works as a techno freak (programmer :)
Joined on Mar 10, 2009

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
In reply to:

attila_feher: I'm a DxO fan ;)

I agree is not perfect, and often is annoyingly slow (especially if you want to remove dust or other unwanted spots) but it has very good ability to squeeze out the smallest detail from the raw file.

But I tried at some point Capture One Pro, too, and the high-ISO noise reduction was quite disappointing...

Adrian, you have a very strong machine by any standards. I have a mobile i5 (dual core processor, not quad core) without a dedicated graphics card. And yes, in the newer versions the video card takes over a part of processing so it is like an extra processor.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 12:22 UTC
On CP+ 2013: Interview with Olympus' Toshi Terada article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Hubenov: All I want is a new 4/3 body !!!
I don't get this obsession with smaller camera bodies! Why would one sacrifice so many good things just for a smaller body? And who is it good for? Snappers and tourists? The 4/3 gear is still more compact than NiCanon DSLR's and the Oly lenses are unmatched!
Come on Olympus, give us a good new 4/3 body this year!!!

I shifted from FT to MFT about two years ago. There are two reasons for this:
- I have sold my FT camera but kept a couple of lenses that I still use on the MFT (an EPL2)
- The MFT body and MFT lenses can be veeeery compact if you need a "carry around" camera, and the MFT lenses are no slouch (sure, they don't compare to TP lenses..)
The only downside of MFT bodies (especially the older ones) is focusing speed. My EPL2 has a great MF-assist feature: it enlages the centre of the image in the viewfinder when I turn the focus ring, but... yes.. a good autofocus cannot be replaced. However, the newest MFT cameras have made a big leap in this direction....

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 12:09 UTC
In reply to:

ottonis: DP-REVIEW, thank you for that great and detailed review.

It's ridiculous that some people here criticize the review because it has not considered their favorite software.

About the Macs... I use my PC/laptop for many other purposes and switching to a mac would heavily limit my options! I admit that Macs have probably some the best screens of the market, and I agree this is very important, but still... I simply cannot imagine myself switching to a Mac.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 14:22 UTC

I'm a DxO fan ;)

I agree is not perfect, and often is annoyingly slow (especially if you want to remove dust or other unwanted spots) but it has very good ability to squeeze out the smallest detail from the raw file.

But I tried at some point Capture One Pro, too, and the high-ISO noise reduction was quite disappointing...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 14:08 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

68craigdale: Just waiting for DXO Life Pro, it will correct all the flaws in my life.

For this you will need a calibrated module for yourself. You'll need to spend 3 months in their labs to get all the measurements done. Then the module might not be released because not enough users would use your profile...
:))

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 07:29 UTC
In reply to:

Michael_13: Great functions, but terrible GUI!

The display is cluttered with frames, but you cannot even move the viewable area of the picture with your mouse. Lightroom - or even Picasa - are much better here: They use fly-outs and make intelligent use of mouse buttons.
A "hand tool" is simply cumbersome.
The modules are a great idea, but also mixed bag: Without them the program even refused to open some JPGs in my collection!

Am I expecting too much for 99€?

Hi Michael, you need to use the "hand tool" to pan your image. Maybe is not the most intuitive way, but it works.
All in all, DxO is DxO, not Google, not Adobe. They do things in their own way and most of the times they do it well...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 07:25 UTC
On DxO Labs launches Optics Pro 7.1 for Mac and Windows article (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thaddeus W. Pruss: I just wonder why Panasonic’s Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH is still not supported by DxO? This is the most highly regarded (and prized by dpreview) Panasonic’s mFT lens with many devoted followers. Selection problem? This situation puts off many DxO potential users.

Instead, DxO Labs choses - for Panasonic mFT cameras - the combination with Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 ...

Hi Axel,
Are there any plans for standard FourThirds lenses on MFT cameras? FYI I am happily using an Olympus FT 14-54 2.8-3.5 II Zuiko lens on my Olympus E-PL2 with the FT-MFT adapter.

I agree that the whole stuff is a bit bulky, but there is no MFT f2.8 zoom lens available yet. Moreover, the new MFT cameras tend to have better sensors than the FT DSLRs, so I don't think that the "marriage" between a faster FT lens to a newer MFT camerera is so unnatural.

Regards, Attila

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2011 at 17:43 UTC
On DxO Labs launches Optics Pro 7.1 for Mac and Windows article (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Naveed Akhtar: How good it is on other fronts, like .. exporting photos to web, flickr facebook etc
and does it got noise reduction too?

Hi Axel,
Is there any high-ISO noise processing improvement over 6.6?

For low-mid ISO pics DxO 6.x is really OK.

But for the high-ISO pictures I have taken with my Olympus E-510 or E-PL2 I still prefer Noiseware. As far as I noticed, the DxO 6.x noise reduction is excellent for prints, but for screen (especially at 1:1 pixel display) the remaining noise is a bit harsh.

Regards, Attila

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2011 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Birk Binnard: Well it looks like those of us who own GH1's are left out in the cold. Booooo to Panasonic for this.

Have anyone tried them on Olympus bodies? I have an Oly E-PL2 and looking forward a pancake lens. If the new 14-42 worked properly on the Oly I would be facing a big dilemma - buy the 20mm f1.7 or the new zoom....

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2011 at 17:01 UTC
On Olympus PEN Lite and PEN Mini announced and previewed article (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

absentaneous: sometimes I really don't understand the logic of camera manufacturers. if the dpreview specification sheet is right and it should be also from looking at the pictures the E-PL3 and E-PM1 cameras don't even have a built in flash! while the E-P3 one which is supposed to be aimed at more advanced users has one! before the story was the way around. the less advanced E-PL got the built in flash and the E-P didn't. and that made sense because an advanced photographer is more likely to even want to use an external flash anyway. I really wonder how many potential E-PL3 or E-PM1 users are the kind of photographers that would want to bother with an external flash unit. I mean really, you bother making a really small camera and then you make it in the way that it need an external flash unit which makes it's small size irrelevant. no logic whatsoever. the only logic I see here is to make more money selling external flashes. I wonder how many people are stupid enough to buy into this.

I also have the VF2. Especially in extreme lighting conditions it makes a real difference (like bright sun or when you need to stay "stealth" in low light). However, like Michael mentioned above, as it is out of the box, it may easily slip off from the camera. In order to increase the friction against the camera body, I glued a piece of slim cloth on its bottom and now is ok ;)

The only feature in the new PEN line-up that I am drooling about is the faster focusing speed. I wish at some point Olympus would publish some firmware updates to improve the focusing speed on the older PEN cameras, too.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2011 at 08:02 UTC
On Olympus PEN Lite and PEN Mini announced and previewed article (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

absentaneous: sometimes I really don't understand the logic of camera manufacturers. if the dpreview specification sheet is right and it should be also from looking at the pictures the E-PL3 and E-PM1 cameras don't even have a built in flash! while the E-P3 one which is supposed to be aimed at more advanced users has one! before the story was the way around. the less advanced E-PL got the built in flash and the E-P didn't. and that made sense because an advanced photographer is more likely to even want to use an external flash anyway. I really wonder how many potential E-PL3 or E-PM1 users are the kind of photographers that would want to bother with an external flash unit. I mean really, you bother making a really small camera and then you make it in the way that it need an external flash unit which makes it's small size irrelevant. no logic whatsoever. the only logic I see here is to make more money selling external flashes. I wonder how many people are stupid enough to buy into this.

I bought an E-PL2 earlier this year, because at that time it was the best value in the PEN line. If it was now, probably I would have looked for the new E-P3.

About portability, all in all is better than a classic SLR. It is true, it doesn't slip in your pocket like a compact, but still, I can carry it around everywhere, with a couple of extra lenses, including a standard four-thirds 14-54 f2,8-3,5 lens. This always comes on top of other stuff (like my laptop, or vacation backpack, etc.) but I can carry most of my equipment in a relatively compact camera bag without breaking my spine.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2011 at 08:02 UTC
On Touchdown in the From the plane window challenge (1 comment in total)

Hi, I am also a frequent flyer, but I never had the chance to see such a picture on the plane window!
What was the aircraft type from which you took this shot?

Thanks, Attila

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2010 at 16:36 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12