Pasha001

Pasha001

Lives in Russian Federation Russian Federation
Joined on Oct 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

gendem: I've had the 2713H for a few weeks now. Anti-glare is much, much better than the 2711 that I had before this. The best thing about this monitor, however, is that it comes with a factory uniformity calibration, making it very, very even across the entire screen. Highly recommended.

> Preset mode is Custom Colour
Exactly! Monitor LUTs calibration is available only in "Color Space" preset so you were using video card LUTs calibration and not monitor LUTs calibration. That's why you could use uniformity compensation.

> mine is the best I've used
Nobody would argue that there are worse monitors than these Dells :).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2013 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

gendem: I've had the 2713H for a few weeks now. Anti-glare is much, much better than the 2711 that I had before this. The best thing about this monitor, however, is that it comes with a factory uniformity calibration, making it very, very even across the entire screen. Highly recommended.

> mine calibrated up just fine
Using what LUTs? Were you using CAL1/CAL2 or your videocard LUTs? See also: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713h.htm

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

gendem: I've had the 2713H for a few weeks now. Anti-glare is much, much better than the 2711 that I had before this. The best thing about this monitor, however, is that it comes with a factory uniformity calibration, making it very, very even across the entire screen. Highly recommended.

Oh yeah but there is one MINOR problem: uniformity correction cannot be used with monitor LUT calibration. This is no NEC.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 14:35 UTC

Does it have internal focusing like Panasonic 14mm?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 17:03 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Ulfric M Douglas: I think this is a great step! The existing 14-42 doesn't have a great reputation, the power-zoom 14-42X has a wildly variable reputation, the original 14-45 has an excellent reputation but you can't buy a new Lumix camera with that lens on anymore.
IF this new one goes back to the great optical and QC standards of the 1st 14-45 then everyone will be happier and there will be less "why my photos shakey?" threads.

> you can't buy a new Lumix camera with that lens on anymore
You can buy them separately as I did. For example, right now G5 body only and 14-45 are in stock of at least one reputable online retailer in the states.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

J2Gphoto: I have never had any dust on any of my Olympus sensors, and I was never careful changing lenses inside or outside. Never a speck. This is not good.

4/3 and micro 4/3 are indeed highly immune to dust. It is there but it is almost invisible. I tried to find dust spots on G2 sensor and they show up only after setting an extreme aperture f/22 and bumping up contrast in postprocessing to a really _enormous_ degree. My D7000 is much worse in that respect.

Maybe this is because of a thick sensor cover or because of a different approach to lens design, I don't know.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 09:51 UTC
In reply to:

jon404: So will it run my cellphone bill into orbit with mammoth 41 MP snapshot uploads? Or does it downsample, thereby actually not being a 41 MP camera at all?

EDIT, from the Amazon website -- "For example, when you want a 5MP photo, PureView packs the goodness of 7 pixels into 1 for sharp, clear, and ready to share photos."

But wait. Isn't a pixel just... a pixel? What am I missing here? And my God, 41 MP on a point 'n shoot sized sensor?

> Isn't a pixel just... a pixel? What am I missing here?
You are mistaking sensels for pixels. This is a common marketing trick: when they are saying a camera has 12 Mpixels it actually has 12 Msensels and those 12 Msensels can only be approximated into 12 Mpixels so that the resulting picture resolution is less than 12 Mpixels in most cases. It is OK if all cameras are based on the same Bayer filter technology but if there is downscaling/binning like in 808 the difference becomes very important because picture obtained after significant downscaling has resolution closer to its actual number of pixels - so those pixels are "better" :).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2012 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

shinan: Year 2012 and still 12 bit raw file. Lol.

Buy D7000 if unsure.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2012 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

PaulRacecar: I think this would be a great travel camera. Light weight, compact, cheap but sharp lenses available. I even like the red colour b/c if it get's stolen (which is quite possible in some countries) you have no problem identifying it. This might be all the camera you need for world travel.

> great travel camera that will eat up more memory than most people would want
Haha, what a bullsh$t. Get out of your cave, 1300 "large fine" JPEGs take up a single 16 Gb card which is a very common size nowadays.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2012 at 11:33 UTC
In reply to:

RakinMuhtadi: Now why would anyone buy this with $699 when you can get the D5100 kit for the same price (after recent cuts)?
Seems like a good camera, this. Although what everyone is ranting on abt the higher megapixel bothers me. What's so bad abt more pixels??

> more megapixels means more image noise.
Disproven by dxo.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2012 at 11:10 UTC
In reply to:

fayez89: Does nikon d3200 has built in focus motor?

Of course not.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2012 at 11:08 UTC
In reply to:

StORM48: I can't believe that they threw out Drive Mode lever, seen on D3100!

They have added a button for that. And infrared remote control can now be used - that was a sad omission on D3100.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: SIMPLY STUNNING: THE NEW NIKON D3200

No, what is stunning is what camera manufacturers now expect people to spend, probably quite rightly, to enter their profit merry go round. Why would I want 24.2 mp to eat up space on my memory cards when with my D300 12.3 mp is perfectly good enough to produce quality prints up to A2?

Consumerism is out of control and nobody needs this ludicrous pixel count for routine photos or to spend anything like this kind of money for the privilege.

> Consumerism is out of control
It is not consumerism, it is technical progress. And it is relatively out of control - relatively to you. You cannot even buy appropriate memory cards and whine about that calling buyers of new equipment "consumerists".

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 08:02 UTC
In reply to:

Robgo2: All but the most fanatical Nikon fans will have to agree that 24MP for an entry level camera is truly absurd. The phrase "wretched excess" is an understatement in this case.

Rob

> All but the most fanatical Nikon fans will have to agree that
> 24MP for an entry level camera is truly absurd
No, I predict the opposite. Megapixels matter the most for common people who like entry-level cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: Way too many pixels for me, who really needs pictures that big? My D40x has it just about right with 10mp, nice big pics with enough detail to stun on my 17" monitor. I never blew up prints that big so don't need them biggger.

Sooner or later someone will realise it's all about marketing now and that picture taking has taken second place and we can all get sane again and stop slowing down our computers with things we don't need....

> who really needs pictures that big?
Those who can afford something better than 17" monitor.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

ZAnton: There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Only real crazy techno-geeks will buy Zeiss.

@ZAnton
No, Ken does not estimate resolution mathematically, for example, as lenstip does. He only cares for things that a sane buyer should check.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2012 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

ZAnton: There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Only real crazy techno-geeks will buy Zeiss.

> There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Yeah, and for idiots. Even Ren Cockwell admits the Samyang is a piece of crap.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

professor4321: From Imaging Resource,
Overexposure "Blooming"
A final limitation of CCD sensors is their reaction to severe illumination overloads. This is the reason for including a shiny pot lid in the Dave Box targets on the Imaging Resource website, because it reflects light sources back into the camera lens. In the face of extremely high light overloads, some CCDs will "leak" charge from the overexposed elements into adjacent cells. This phenomenon is called blooming, and various methods are employed to prevent it. It most frequently shows itself as a colored fringe around specular (shiny) highlights. Frequently, the sensor will bloom differently in each of the red, green or blue channels, producing the colored fringes where one channel has bloomed more than the others. The impact of this for your particular work will depend on its nature. If you intend to photograph a lot of chromed auto parts, blooming could be a big problem. It would be a complete non-issue in photos of bath towels.

CCD generally exhibit somewhat different kind of blooming that looks like streaks. CMOS is considered more resilient to this problem. However, I can see something very similar to Fuji glitches in some photos from my phone Nokia N8 that has a CMOS sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2012 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

professor4321: There's a lot of speculation on this thread about what's causing the problem but none of these posters actually know, do they? Let's hope Fuji explain soon.

By the way when everyone's finally finished with the orbs you can move onto the following,
"The image area with high brightness might be recorded as "black-out" area, just in case of dedicated shooting condition, This unpleasant phenomenon is improved."

From latest firmware update.

> Let's hope Fuji explain soon.
But Fuji has explained a long time ago: "The blooming issue is something not uncommon to many types of digital camera". Just poor blooming protection, that's all.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2012 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

jorepuusa: I have Fuji X10. I did not buy it to shoot white orbs. I bought it because of its superior ergonomics. The white orbs can be seen sometimes when a shot is taken. But one has to hunt the picture to find them and if You do not know what to look, You cannot see them at all.
I´m sure that 99% of people who write here do not have a Fuji, do not know what the orbs look and do not find them in a picture.
I admit that they are there BUT similar white orbs are produced by Canon G12, Nikon P7000, not to speak of cheaper point and shoots.
This " conversation" here shows the main problem among amateur photographers.
Most of them cannot shoot a proper picture and they know that they never will, anyways they want to stay in the crowd of photographers and the only way is to write miserable and laughable thoughts of technology.
That is the worst way of making photography go further.
All cams over 500€ produce pictures that cannot be separated from each other in web and very thinly as prints.

> I´ve covered war and crisis and famine in 9 countries for AP, UPI, DPA and AFP
Not exactly a believable claim considering how bad your portfolio is.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 09:52 UTC
Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »