PIX 2015
aftab

aftab

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Thames, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a Doctor
Joined on Sep 27, 2005

Comments

Total: 149, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

As a poster below has mentioned, nearly all DSLRs or mirrorless have an auto mode and various scene modes. They are much simpler to use than smartphones and take great pictures. But it is true that most people have an impression that they are complicated to operate. But is the reason an iPhone user is not getting a dedicated camera? Part of the answer lies in Mr Heath's own article. According to him iPhone takes 'surprisingly incredible' photos. So, if an iPhone can take awesome images then why an iPhone user would buy a dedicated camera even if camera manufacturers make them simple and fun to use? So, the main reason dedicated cameras are losing market is not because they are complicated and less fun, it is because most people don't need them anymore to take images they want. They already have a camera that does the job for them and they have it with them all the time. (continued below)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 02:32 UTC as 109th comment | 1 reply

There are several sources of fun in photography: owing a gear, going out to take pictures, waiting for the moment, capturing the moment, editing, printing, sharing etc. For the new generation the fun factor is different. It all about instant sharing of the puckered lips or cheesy smiles. For more artistically inclined there is Instagram. Smartphone and social media have created this new fun factor and the hypothetical fun to use dedicated camera is not going to change it. New generation do not 'need' anything beyond a smartphone for fun in photography.
For those more photographically inclined, existing gears are excellent, most don't need or want (or afford) a new camera.
These are some of the reasons (excluding all important economic factor) why dedicated camera market is shrinking.
Bottom line: Mr Heath hardly makes any valid point.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 02:32 UTC as 110th comment | 2 replies
On The new Canon 35L II will be a thing of beauty article (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

aftab: Sunburst here from the new lens

https://www.flickr.com/photos/petapixel/20737418178/sizes/o/

Yeah, we will have to see more samples. I wonder if stopped down is less prone to 'misalignment'.

PS, saw Roger's report before. It seems 50mm STM is pretty good in that regard too. Anyways, lovely pictures in your article. It seems you have been shooting for much longer than I thought you were. :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 21:00 UTC
On The new Canon 35L II will be a thing of beauty article (220 comments in total)

Sunburst here from the new lens

https://www.flickr.com/photos/petapixel/20737418178/sizes/o/

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:03 UTC as 39th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Pandimonium: I need a lens with BS refraction too

You already have a camera with that feature.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3894233

Lens won't be too far away.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 09:32 UTC
In reply to:

Dr Glyco: "Organic material" = plastic lens

No, its the politically correct version of orgasmic material.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 08:58 UTC
In reply to:

Abu Mahendra: This lens will be mine.

Mine too. The portrait is sooo dreamy. :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 08:45 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: Interested to see comparison with Sigma 35mm Art. Beating Sigma will be very hard especially justifying that price difference.

I know its not always easy or accurate to compare two MTF charts done by two manufacturers using different methods. But if we go by this two charts then latest Canon is better than Sigma.

Sigma

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14/features.html

Canon

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14/features.html

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 08:15 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study article (374 comments in total)
In reply to:

aftab: Few points:
1. Looked at 100% all ISO samples are crappy. There is no free lunch yet.
2. As far as the noise and detail goes every ISO is better than lower ISOs pushed for the same brightness. The difference between ISO100 and 6400 is not modest, it is huge. So, your recommendation should be to use the highest ISO (up to ISO6400 for this test) in low light without blowing the highlight and push as less as possible in the post. This is quite opposite to the tone of your article or recommendation. Moreover, higher ISO let one use higher shutter speed in low light handheld situation
3. We don't have a 'true' ISO-invariant camera yet. All modern cameras become ISO invariant at certain ISO.
4. Whenever possible one should aim for proper exposure in the first place. Pushing shadows comes with cost no matter which camera you are using.
5. Best image in this article is the one from D810.

@Iliah: I guess ISO1600 to 3200 would be reasonable in most situations. One more thing I have noticed is that ISO6400 seems to be the brightest of the lot in this test. It could be due to the RAW converter.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 04:09 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study article (374 comments in total)
In reply to:

aftab: Few points:
1. Looked at 100% all ISO samples are crappy. There is no free lunch yet.
2. As far as the noise and detail goes every ISO is better than lower ISOs pushed for the same brightness. The difference between ISO100 and 6400 is not modest, it is huge. So, your recommendation should be to use the highest ISO (up to ISO6400 for this test) in low light without blowing the highlight and push as less as possible in the post. This is quite opposite to the tone of your article or recommendation. Moreover, higher ISO let one use higher shutter speed in low light handheld situation
3. We don't have a 'true' ISO-invariant camera yet. All modern cameras become ISO invariant at certain ISO.
4. Whenever possible one should aim for proper exposure in the first place. Pushing shadows comes with cost no matter which camera you are using.
5. Best image in this article is the one from D810.

Thanks Iliah. Being a DPR-holic for so long I should have thought about it. Anyways, barring the blown highlight ISO3200 pushed and ISO6400 seem virtually indistinguishable, although I think in the deepest shadows ISO6400 wins by a whisker.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 00:56 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study article (374 comments in total)
In reply to:

aftab: Few points:
1. Looked at 100% all ISO samples are crappy. There is no free lunch yet.
2. As far as the noise and detail goes every ISO is better than lower ISOs pushed for the same brightness. The difference between ISO100 and 6400 is not modest, it is huge. So, your recommendation should be to use the highest ISO (up to ISO6400 for this test) in low light without blowing the highlight and push as less as possible in the post. This is quite opposite to the tone of your article or recommendation. Moreover, higher ISO let one use higher shutter speed in low light handheld situation
3. We don't have a 'true' ISO-invariant camera yet. All modern cameras become ISO invariant at certain ISO.
4. Whenever possible one should aim for proper exposure in the first place. Pushing shadows comes with cost no matter which camera you are using.
5. Best image in this article is the one from D810.

Celsus, I agree that difference between ISO800 pushed and ISO6400 in not that great in most part of the scene in this test. But in some places it is quite visible.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4269542963/photos/3277684/2015-08-25_114429?inalbum=this-and-that

Wish we had ISO3200 to compare.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 00:03 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study article (374 comments in total)

Few points:
1. Looked at 100% all ISO samples are crappy. There is no free lunch yet.
2. As far as the noise and detail goes every ISO is better than lower ISOs pushed for the same brightness. The difference between ISO100 and 6400 is not modest, it is huge. So, your recommendation should be to use the highest ISO (up to ISO6400 for this test) in low light without blowing the highlight and push as less as possible in the post. This is quite opposite to the tone of your article or recommendation. Moreover, higher ISO let one use higher shutter speed in low light handheld situation
3. We don't have a 'true' ISO-invariant camera yet. All modern cameras become ISO invariant at certain ISO.
4. Whenever possible one should aim for proper exposure in the first place. Pushing shadows comes with cost no matter which camera you are using.
5. Best image in this article is the one from D810.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2015 at 20:29 UTC as 54th comment | 23 replies
In reply to:

aftab: Rishi, you know well that you have drawn a broad conclusion based on one test using a specific lens and aperture. To draw such a conclusion you need to use variety of lenses, different bodies, different FLs and subjects etc. At the end you may be proven to be right though, but for now your conclusion applies only to this specific situation.

Thanks for the explanation, Rishi. While writing the comment I was thinking your scientific background won't let you draw such a conclusion based on 'super limited' data. Now, I know you did use other camera lens combinations too. It would be useful for potential buyers of this camera if you can also test it in more real life situations, such indoor sport events, night soccer etc using longer FL lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 23:15 UTC

Rishi, you know well that you have drawn a broad conclusion based on one test using a specific lens and aperture. To draw such a conclusion you need to use variety of lenses, different bodies, different FLs and subjects etc. At the end you may be proven to be right though, but for now your conclusion applies only to this specific situation.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 21:20 UTC as 150th comment | 10 replies
On photo in sample gallery (19 comments in total)

Rishi is a handsome dude.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 06:55 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On a7RII-RS-DSC08595-ISO_100 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (18 comments in total)

Rishi is a handsome dude.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 06:55 UTC as 3rd comment
On photo in sample gallery (18 comments in total)

Rishi is a handsome dude.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 06:55 UTC as 3rd comment

I wonder how many stops of shadow lifting was involved in the first image, looks pretty noisy. So is
a7RII-RS-DSC09406-ISO_100

Shows we still have a long way to go before we can ditch our filters and techniques such a exposure blending.

It will be interesting to see comparisons with D810.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 06:11 UTC as 63rd comment
On a7RII-RS-DSC09406-ISO_100 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Rishi, you need to apply sharpening a bit more selectively. Background is pretty noisy.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 05:58 UTC as 1st comment
On photo in sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Like this one best.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 05:41 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 149, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »