mpgxsvcd

mpgxsvcd

Lives in United States USA, NC, United States
Works as a Jack of all Trades
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 1956, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review preview (430 comments in total)

It is astonishing to me that Panasonic has great 4K video in a sub $800 camera while Canon and Nikon still have not produced a true DSLR with 4K video. It almost seems like Canon and Nikon have abandoned the video market.

That is fine there still is plenty of market for stills cameras today. However, that probably won’t be the case 2-3 years from now. Hopefully, Canon and Nikon can play catch up by then.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 15:30 UTC as 112th comment | 2 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review preview (430 comments in total)

“Auto ISO is not available at all when shooting video.”

Can you clarify that statement a little bit? Surely you don’t mean that this camera cannot control ISO during video recording? How does ISO function when you hit the record button in one of the stills modes?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 15:23 UTC as 114th comment | 8 replies
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I think Dpreview raised their standards for the “Gold” award because they knew cameras like this one were just around the corner. It is almost in a class all by itself.

I am certain that Dpreview will place it in a class with other cameras. I seriously doubt they will put it in a class all by itself. That is why I said "almost".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 19:06 UTC
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)

I think Dpreview raised their standards for the “Gold” award because they knew cameras like this one were just around the corner. It is almost in a class all by itself.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 14:12 UTC as 134th comment | 6 replies
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)

Sony is firing on all cylinders now!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 13:05 UTC as 149th comment

Those are nice lenses that I could never afford.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 05:40 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies

Useless for astronomy with its 4 second shutter speed limitation. That is the area where it had the most potential.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:41 UTC as 58th comment | 4 replies

Here is the moon at 3200mm equivalent with a GH2 and a $30 tripod. Try catching a plane in front of the moon at that focal length. It isn’t very easy especially without a tracking mount.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYl7GvspoRk

And here is the moon with a $500 telescope and the GH4 at 4K. This did use a tracking mount though. That makes it much easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaUsn1LEATs

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 13:57 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies

Nothing in these pictures make me want to run out and buy this camera. The lens wasn't great for these images and the noise was distracting. It wasn't the photographer' fault. It was the equipment's limitations this time.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:46 UTC as 16th comment
On SAM_020_ISO640 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

Really noisy for ISO 640.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:41 UTC as 4th comment
On photo in sample gallery (5 comments in total)

Really noisy for ISO 640.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:41 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

JeanPierre Thibaudeau: What is this? A full frame camera with all sample images shot between 100-800 ISO?? Nothing above 800! When DPR reviews a 4/3 sensor camera, the ISO is pushed beyond ISO 6400 on their samples.

Does Canon need help to hide their high ISO performance?

We want to see samples at ISO 12000 and beyond for the new 5D full frame cameras.

It doesn't go beyond ISO 12,800 and even that ISO is already in its expanded range.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:38 UTC

I was disappointed that they haven't figured out how to fix the RAW compression issue. That will be a tough thing for them to overcome when the other manufactures have that advantage over them.

That being said their camera has so many more advantages that some people might be able to work around the RAW compression difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:29 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
On P1750346 photo in mpgxsvcd's photo gallery (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

ANAYV: This is the best the GH4 can do, for a moon shot ?
I think todays superzoom can easily outperform this...showing more detail..perhaps do to better optics, and less need to crop. Plus no need for tripod, with their superior O.I.S. Surely I don't miss my GH2 with 45 to 200mm lens.

No that is not the best the GH4 can do. The optics are the limiting factor there. That was with a fast focal ratio Newtonian telescope. You need a fully corrected SCT scope to do the moon and the GH4 justice.

However, it isn’t a bad picture considering the scope only costs $450 and can also take amazing deep space photos as well.

The large sensor fixed lens zoom camera probably would do just fine for moon shots. However, you will find that atmospheric conditions will be the limiting factor no matter what camera and lens you use for single exposure images like this.

You are much better off taking video and then stacking the frames to eliminate the changes in the atmospheric conditions. There the GH4 really excels as you can see from some of my other and better moon pictures.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:18 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: It isn’t a bad camera. However, it is just simply a little late. There were too many great options in this category last year. Everyone bought a camera back then.

I am sure they will sell plenty of these cameras. However, it definitely would have sold better if it was announced last June instead of this June and I don’t see any reason they couldn’t have made this camera before now.

There is simply too much competition now. Which is a good thing for consumers but not so great for manufacturers that are selling less and less cameras every year.

They won’t be as pleased about the sales of this camera as Sony was about their RX100 cameras or even Panasonic was about their LX100. I can tell you that much.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)

You can always think of this camera as a $1250 camera with a removable EVF. Then it is simply overpriced but it actually has a feature advantage in that you can remove the EVF when you don’t need/want it.

A removable EVF is a good thing and not a bad thing especially in a camera this small. It allows you to have a flash and an EVF simultaneously. There simply isn’t a place on this camera to put a built-in EVF without removing the Flash or the hot shoe.

If you think about it that way you will see that Canon designed it exactly right. They just didn’t hit the price point they really needed to hit.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)

It isn’t a bad camera. However, it is just simply a little late. There were too many great options in this category last year. Everyone bought a camera back then.

I am sure they will sell plenty of these cameras. However, it definitely would have sold better if it was announced last June instead of this June and I don’t see any reason they couldn’t have made this camera before now.

There is simply too much competition now. Which is a good thing for consumers but not so great for manufacturers that are selling less and less cameras every year.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:02 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
On 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup article (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?

Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.

I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.

My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?

This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.

If you can’t see it with your naked eye then you certainly won’t be able to follow it with one of these cameras. Much less take a picture of it with the subpar image stabilization these cameras offer.

Just try to follow a bird that is a mile or so away. You won’t even get it in the frame.

You are much better off with a 25x camera with good RAW capabilities and then cropping in post.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 20:05 UTC
On 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup article (166 comments in total)

The Panasonic FZ1000($720) is $123 more than the Nikon P900($597) on Amazon right now. You would have to be stupid to buy the Nikon over the FZ1000.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:59 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
On 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup article (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: the lens comparison isn't working for me here...

I would LOVE to see the results of the test that MOSC mentioned. I bet the super zooms wouldn't stand a chance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:53 UTC
Total: 1956, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »