Yohan Pamudji

Yohan Pamudji

Lives in United States MS, United States
Works as a Programmer/wannabe photographer
Joined on Feb 27, 2003

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
In reply to:

T3: So whatever happened to all those yahoos who believed that the key to better high ISO performance was MORE pixels and HIGHER pixel density?

Was more pixels = less noise the actual claim? Are you sure it's not that more pixels doesn't equal more noise at a per-image level? There's a difference.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

Lab D: A 4K camera that can't shoot 4K on its own. Only Sony.

What's the point of 4096 instead of 3840? Doesn't that make for a weird aspect ratio?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: Knowing how some fans are, I wonder how many people pointed this out only to be told they were making things up :-)

Lots. Oh the crow-eating that will ensue. Or not, since people who ridicule others the loudest are often the least likely to admit their own mistakes.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2014 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

Dunsun: If I'm not mistaken E-P5 already has this feature.
Setting: Release Lag-time = short.

Cheers

E-M1 has that too. This is something different.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2014 at 19:14 UTC
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review preview (819 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhendrix: Anyone have an example of ISO 204,800? Does it look like pointillism?

If you turn on noise reduction it looks like a Monet.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 22:05 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2126 comments in total)

Is there a mistake at ISO 6400 on the daylight studio shot? Up to ISO 3200 compared to the E-M5 and E-P5 the E-M1 is almost identical. Then at 6400 the E-M1 is very smudgy compared to the other 2. At 12800 they're comparable again. The problem doesn't seem to occur in the low light studio shots at ISO 6400 so it shouldn't be the camera at fault.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 03:59 UTC as 130th comment
On Fujifilm X-M1 Preview preview (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mrrowe8: Those that are poop pooping my saying is this better then the RX100 , is at the price point this camera and the RX occupy the RX is full frame is this camera ? Ahh NO , the RX as well fits in ur pocket .. This does not ., so some of you are saying you would buy a camera that doesn't have better over all resolution , not full frame and u have to buy additional lens for while the RX is full frame fits in ur pocket and has the equivalent of several lens ? Seriously ur going to defend that ? C'mon man no one is that stupid ...

Where is this RX that has a full frame, can fit in a pocket, and is around this price point? I'd buy 3 of them.

Wrong AND adamant--a winning combination.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2013 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

Sam Carleton: So how are folks coming up with the f/3.2 equivalent? If the Nikon 1 is a 4/3 system, then you double the aperture, correct? That being the case, if you do the math the correct way, you square the aperture of f/1.2 and get 1.44, then multiple that by a factor of 4 (2 square) and get 5.76, then take the square root of that and get f/2.4.

This fits because f/1.2 is half way between f/1 and f/1.4, f/1.7 is one stop slower, being half way between f/1.4 and f/2, then f/2.4 is half way between f/2 and f/2.8.

So how are folks coming up with a f/3.2?

Nikon 1 is smaller then 4/3.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Richt2000: Wow. I reckon if the X-Pro2 has autofocus speed of a m43 camera, and the roadmapped lenses are as good as the existing 35 and 60 lenses, it will be a killer travel system.

AF speed is a big "if"--it has a long way to go to catch up. But if it does I'll be taking a 2nd look for sure, especially with the 23mm f/1.4 coming up.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2012 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

tkpenalty: Is it just me or are panasonic carrying the m43 platform themselves these days?

It's just you.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 05:30 UTC
On The Photofile Series published by Thames & Hudson article (9 comments in total)

Great stocking stuffer for a photo enthusiast loved one, or to buy for yourself if you want to sample a photographer's work but don't want to splurge for a big and expensive photo book. Got the Koudelka one for Christmas last year and it's fantastic.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2011 at 17:16 UTC as 3rd comment
On Preview:samsungnx200 (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Meyer: I guess there are lots of people who don't understand what they give up without an eye-level viewfinder, but to me this camera has little to recommend it. With lenses, it's still far bigger than the m43 system, and it doesn't seem to offer enough in the way of image quality to justify it. And without even an optional eye level viewfinder, you're stuck taking pictures in what is probably the worst possible way to hold a camera steady.

Maybe instead of lacking in understanding, those people are making a conscious decision not to go with an eye-level viewfinder. Just a thought. Not using an eye-level viewfinder doesn't automatically mean a lack of knowledge about its benefits.

I agree on the lenses though. The zooms are a bit large, although they have a couple of nice pancakes too.

Posted on Sep 1, 2011 at 16:39 UTC
On Sony NEX-7 high-end APS-C mirrorless camera first look news story (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

Patman888: I find it quite laughable how the M4/3 crowd puts the size of the lens before everything else. I always thought IQ and ergonomics were the most important. I guess I went to the wrong university.

"I find it quite laughable how the M4/3 crowd puts the size of the lens before everything else."

Way to build a straw man, Patman. If that were true then all m4/3 users would be cell phone camera users. Any other silly, generalized, exaggerated claims you want to make?

Perhaps, just perhaps, some of us prefer something more compact while maintaining good image quality. Not everything has to be a pancake, but look at the size of the Olympus 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8 for good examples of non-pancake-but-still-compact lenses for m4/3. I'd like to see similar lenses for NEX, albeit slightly bigger to cover the larger sensor. Still waiting.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2011 at 20:10 UTC
On Preview:olympusep3 (155 comments in total)

If "the 'second-body' segment is almost mythical", then I'm almost a unicorn.

Posted on Jun 30, 2011 at 05:32 UTC as 81st comment
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14