JesperMP

Lives in Denmark Copenhagen, Denmark
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Oct 15, 2009
About me:

Mildly interested photography amateur.
Grew up with a Canon AE1.
Now ponders how to be smart in the digital world.

Comments

Total: 144, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

If the results of the SD1 can be transferred over to DP2 merril, then we should expect this:
Fenomonal resolution. Nearly as good as D800 and 645D. Depends on if the fixed lens is good enough of course.
Awful High-ISO performance.
And "Exceptional image quality at low ISO, especially in Raw mode" (DPR words from the SD1 review).

Think about that, for a year ago Sigma asked near 10000 USD for this, now it can be had for 1/10 of that ! I know, with a fixed lens, but nevertheless something to think about.

A special camera that is no good for what other cameras can do, but can do something that no other camera can do.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:56 UTC as 56th comment | 5 replies
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

schaki: Thinking about the sensor-size and missed raw. I wouldn't say that S100 is the direct competitor for the P300 and now P310. The specs are closer to the Canon Elph 500HS / Ixus 310 http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_ixus310hs
For Nikon this remain something of a missed opportunity as them unfortunately aimed too low imo.

I dont understand the infatuation with having to categorize cameras into boxes. If P300/P310 resemble S100 or 500HS/310 the most - who cares ?
Judge P300/P310 by its own merits.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2012 at 15:41 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JesperMP: After checking the comparison tool, I have to agree with what others have already said.
P310 has markedly poorer IQ than P300.

Can we see side-by-side sample images from P300/P310 somewhere, with P310 NR set to low ?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2012 at 15:31 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wubslin: Are Nikon even trying any more?

Sam, that was sarcasm, right ?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2012 at 15:29 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: OK, I don't get it.

Clearly, the older P300 has better image quality.
The side by side comparisons clearly prove it.

And Amazon probably knows this too, since they are selling the new P310 for $20 less than the older P300. And the joke of the day is that Amazon will sell you a brand new Pen EPL1 (with lens) for less money than a P310.

So where is the upgrade? You come back a year later, spend more money, get 4 more MP, and end up a camera with the same specs and body but with worse image quality.

All you really get in this new model is the ability to capture photos at a truly horrid ISO 6400 setting, rather than a truly horrid ISO 3200. This is a nice little pocket camera for snapshots, but there really isn't much point of using it over base ISO. And yes, despite these shortcomings, it still beats the pants off a camera phone. If the target market even cares.

And considering the similarity with last year's P300, this upgrade is totally unnecessary.

(deleted - double post)

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2012 at 09:08 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: OK, I don't get it.

Clearly, the older P300 has better image quality.
The side by side comparisons clearly prove it.

And Amazon probably knows this too, since they are selling the new P310 for $20 less than the older P300. And the joke of the day is that Amazon will sell you a brand new Pen EPL1 (with lens) for less money than a P310.

So where is the upgrade? You come back a year later, spend more money, get 4 more MP, and end up a camera with the same specs and body but with worse image quality.

All you really get in this new model is the ability to capture photos at a truly horrid ISO 6400 setting, rather than a truly horrid ISO 3200. This is a nice little pocket camera for snapshots, but there really isn't much point of using it over base ISO. And yes, despite these shortcomings, it still beats the pants off a camera phone. If the target market even cares.

And considering the similarity with last year's P300, this upgrade is totally unnecessary.

ukrbearcat,
based on the comparison tool, I cannot see how you come to that P310 has better IQ than P300. No change in the NR can save the P310 a I see it.

Apart from that, I think that such cams do have a purpose.
I would try to get a discount on a P300 in the shop, arguing it is yesterdays model and has less pixels .. ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2012 at 09:01 UTC
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)

After checking the comparison tool, I have to agree with what others have already said.
P310 has markedly poorer IQ than P300.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2012 at 08:45 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
On article Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix P310 review (156 comments in total)

It is cheaper than S100, and even a bit cheaper than a discounted S95, so for some it may be a good camera.
As for comparing it againts regular P&S cameras, then the P310 do have a significant advantage in its F1.8 lens. Most P&S start at F3.5 and a few start at F2.8.

Personally, I would take a discounted S95 over this one.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2012 at 14:27 UTC as 29th comment
On article Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

rpm40: People- if you want a camera with a tilting lcd, a viewfinder, a hot shoe, a grip....this isn't the camera for you. They didn''t make a mistake in omitting them, if you ask me. If sony added any of those, it would be an identity crisis for a model that has a well defined purpose- the smallest, most streamlined camera they could make with a big sensor and fast lens.

If they made a camera with all of those features, it would not be a compact. Rather, it would basically be a resurection of the R1. I think it could be a cool camera, but the original R1 did NOT sell well. Maybe if this is a success, sony will follow up with such a camera? Take this rx100, add a hotshoe, EVF, NEX tilt screen, grip, and maybe a zoomier lens (the original R1 was 24-120 eq.), and voila! Sony R2. Then again, you'd be closer in size to the G1x or X10.

It's all a matter of preference, but me- I think this one's a winner.

I agree with rpm40, except I would have liked just a little bit of grip. Small enough grip to not compromise the smallness yet be big enough to comfortably hold it safely.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2012 at 12:41 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: I think Nikon and Sony have hit on the right size of sensor for this sort of camera,

As ever comments are about what it doesn't have, lens is a bit slow at the long end compared to F X10, which would work toward levelling the performance advantage of a larger sensor.

build one with flip out screen and an optical VF to make it a prober street photographers camera and i would be more interested.

Point and shoot have to do something camera phones are swallowing up there market

@marike6
"huge brick" may be an exageration.
So is "absolutely tiny".
I have seen and held J1/V1, and they are indeed bigger than NEX.
And going by the appearant size of RX100 (I have not seen one in real life), J1/V1 is much bigger, especially considering the lens apertures.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2012 at 12:37 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Just took a look at the test shots at Imaging Resource. Looked at the wide angle 10.4 mm setting in raw and it's pretty clear why they didn't go wider. Fisheye lens included at no extra charge. The jpeg processing removes the distortion but either way (raw/jpeg) the corners weren't what you would hope from Zeiss. Complaining? I pre-ordered one. Hope springs eternal.

It is the way things are going these days.
A zoom lens starting at F1.8 with an image circle for a 1" sensor. How can they make it so small ? Because they compensate for the lens distortion in software. Just like Canon S95/S100.
It is something you just have to accept.

N.B. I have an S95.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2012 at 07:18 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: If this camera was around the same price as a Canon S100, then it will be a huge hit.

But Sony is planning to sell it for around the same price as a Nikon D5100 with lens, or twice as much as an S100, and that price just won't fly. It's a nice little camera but it just doesn't offer enough value for the money.

I have the S95 because it is a camera I have with me 100% of the time. I could have gotten an entry-level DSLR for the same price, but I know that if I had gotten that instead of the S95 I would only have it with me 5-10% of the time.
I am very interested in this RX100.

Besides, despite its larger sensor, I doubt that a D5100 w kit zoom takes better pictures than the RX100 at the largest aperture. F1.8 vs F3.5 is a HUGE difference.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2012 at 07:05 UTC
In reply to:

CriticalI: These samples are not a judgement of the camera but of Adobe. Here are two samples converted from the supplied Silkypix converter with a minimal USM applied.(Original conversion courtesy of Warfie 35).

Enough detail for you? These are less detailed than the RPP conversions but still a lot better than the Adobe ones.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6049604561

@Emacs23.
You are right that now we can see the difference with the moiré from differing algorithms.
More interesting is to see differing algorithms for Xpro1, and from similar 16 MP sensors. Is sharpness at base ISO at least as good as other sensors, and are there more details and less grain at high ISO than other sensors. Thats what I want to know.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

CriticalI: These samples are not a judgement of the camera but of Adobe. Here are two samples converted from the supplied Silkypix converter with a minimal USM applied.(Original conversion courtesy of Warfie 35).

Enough detail for you? These are less detailed than the RPP conversions but still a lot better than the Adobe ones.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6049604561

@Emacs23
Why isnt exactly the same picture used for the test of the two algorithms ?
How can we know if the moiré differnece is due to different algorithm, or due to that one picture is not level like the other (so that the pattern in the building wall will line up differently with the sensor pixels) ?

Link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

CriticalI: These samples are not a judgement of the camera but of Adobe. Here are two samples converted from the supplied Silkypix converter with a minimal USM applied.(Original conversion courtesy of Warfie 35).

Enough detail for you? These are less detailed than the RPP conversions but still a lot better than the Adobe ones.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6049604561

There is color moiré in the silkypix picture of the queen engraving. Disappointing considering the innovative sensor design. Or, something is wrong with these samples too.
I didnt see any moiré in the ACR Xpro1 samples, even where other 16MP cameras show obvious moiré.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:44 UTC

After the correction of the studio samples, I dont really see any difference.
Xpro1 is still softer at base ISO than other 16MP sensors.
Xpro1 still has mushy results at high ISO (where even D4 shows some bit of grain).

Link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 07:40 UTC as 9th comment

Like others have posted, comparing Xpro1 against other 16MP sensors like K5 and K-01, Xpro1 looks softer at base ISO despite the lack of AA filter.
At high ISO, there is a smooting of the noise, almost like a JPG. There is no "grain" to see at all.

DPR said that the good news is that the resolution is almost like the JPGs. What do they mean by that ? Who would buy a camera in this class and get JPGs ?

I dont believe that this is really "real" RAW.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 07:42 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

JesperMP: Good review BUT............

How can DPR not have spotted how Oly E-M5 chooses significantly different aperture/speed settings than other cameras.
Example from DPRs own comparison widget:
E-M5 @ISO3200: f6.3 1/800s.
NEX-5N @ISO3200: f8 1/800s.
That means E-M5 has 2/3 stops more light to make the same picture.
One might go as far as call it "cheating".

By that I do not agree that Oly has closed the gap sensor-wise. Not that it is a bad camera, not all all, but when comparing cameras in such a "scientific" way, the comparisons must be under exactly the same conditions.

The way the latter part procedure works in your description (the studio comparison part) will mean that sensor differences are masked away.
The procedure effectively is a way to meter so that the end-result is an exposure balanced picture. The differences in the shutter speed can be due to differences in the light, or differences in the sensors ISO accuracy. One cannot know by looking at the values from the comparison chart. One has to take the additional info from the ISO accuracy test into account.
OK, at least I understand this now.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 22:19 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

JesperMP: Good review BUT............

How can DPR not have spotted how Oly E-M5 chooses significantly different aperture/speed settings than other cameras.
Example from DPRs own comparison widget:
E-M5 @ISO3200: f6.3 1/800s.
NEX-5N @ISO3200: f8 1/800s.
That means E-M5 has 2/3 stops more light to make the same picture.
One might go as far as call it "cheating".

By that I do not agree that Oly has closed the gap sensor-wise. Not that it is a bad camera, not all all, but when comparing cameras in such a "scientific" way, the comparisons must be under exactly the same conditions.

Andy Westlake said this in that thread:

/We're not tesing meter calibration - the camera's metering isn't involved in our ISO testing at all. Instead, we set the lighting up to a critically-controlled level (to within 1/10 EV) using a calibrated external lightmeter, then shoot the test camera in manual exposure and look at the JPEG output brightness of a specific grey target. We also double-check against a couple of recently-tested cameras to ensure consistency across reviews, and periodically check our calibrated photographic light meter (which reads in EV) against an independent scientific lightmeter (that measures in Lux, so is a bit tedious to use as a matter of course). /

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1041&parent=40947308&thread=40933109&quote=1

Now I am confused. Is the studio lighting calibrated or not ?

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 17:56 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

JesperMP: Good review BUT............

How can DPR not have spotted how Oly E-M5 chooses significantly different aperture/speed settings than other cameras.
Example from DPRs own comparison widget:
E-M5 @ISO3200: f6.3 1/800s.
NEX-5N @ISO3200: f8 1/800s.
That means E-M5 has 2/3 stops more light to make the same picture.
One might go as far as call it "cheating".

By that I do not agree that Oly has closed the gap sensor-wise. Not that it is a bad camera, not all all, but when comparing cameras in such a "scientific" way, the comparisons must be under exactly the same conditions.

If that shall make sense, then they changed it to darker, to allow measuring the sensors with very high ISO capability. So they did that between the NEX5N and the E-M5 tests ?
Other sites that do comparisons, have a dark and bright scene to make it possible to compare sensors at extremely wide ISO settings.
It makes sense, but I feel miffed since every laboratory measurement assumes identical conditions (or at least compensate for the varying conditions by separate measurements). A separate information "ISO accuracy" just confuses the matter even more. It means that what we see in the comparison widget is not the true picture so to speak.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 16:24 UTC
Total: 144, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »