Impulses

Lives in Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Works as a student
Joined on Apr 7, 2013

Comments

Total: 979, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »
On article 4K video: What you need to know (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

spitfire31: Was this produced in 24 point font and L-O-T-S of S--P--A--C--E for reading challenged kiddies?

One glance, and I'll never bother with any of your "sponsored" material again. It deprecates the whole image of DPReview.

Bad move.

/Joachim

I read it thru, and didn't mind the font, didn't really learn anything new but I imagine it's pretty informative for anyone that hasn't read anything about 4K. The Panasonic slant wasn't too strong, although there was no mention of the downsides of 4K Photo while pushing it (higher compression and rolling shutter distortion due to the electronic shutter). The page did stutter a bit on my phone, it's a little design heavy regardless of the aesthetics.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 06:01 UTC
In reply to:

happypoppeye: There is very little benefit shooting in RAW these days and its easier for a company to handle jpegs. Plus, jpegs are almost just as editable.

But those adjustments are easily undone or checked for on a RAW file. The same process takes considerable analysis on a JPEG... People act like every RAW shooter is an HDR crazed post processing maven... Here's a news flash, almost every modern ILC can generate in camera JPEG with multi frame HDR composition, amongst a ton of other things...

This policy would have absolutely zero impact on that.

Forget HDR, cameras can generate focus stacked JPEGs, or panos, or light/bulb composites... Some of those modes can easily be exploited to tell half truths, like long exposures which hide any moving people in the frame, or certain lights. It'd be harder to detect that on a composite out of body JPEG than separate RAWs.

If they're really trying to keep photographers honest they're going the wrong way about it.

OOC JPEG + RAW would actually make much more sense, and they can accept or reject whatever has been edited, which they can more readily track on a RAW. Or, you know actually trust pros and don't let a couple incidents paint the whole bunch as dishonest.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 23:48 UTC

How is it harder to hide changes on a JPEG? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If you're sending a RAW + sidecar or DNG then Reuters can undo every single change in a couple clicks, if you send a JPEG they have no idea what's changed unless they spend considerable time analyzing. I'm confused... I mean, they accept cropped JPEGs and that's possibly one of the most destructive and potentially deceitful edits, and they have absolutely no way of looking beyond the crop.

I mean, I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other.Outside of sports and some other action there's little downside to shooting JPEG+RAW (smaller buffer is the only real downside), and JPEG are quicker to move around... But this raises so many questions. What about in camera RAW conversion? Heck, these days JPEG can be heavily cooked IN camera with bodies that do HDR, have all manner of JPEG profile telling, and are even starting to feature focus stacking and post capture focus selection.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 23:39 UTC as 58th comment
In reply to:

Don Kiyoti: This is clearly about the growing problem of some unethical photographers altering the content of their images by adding or deleting elements. There have been some well-publicized cases of this happening. Sometimes it's to "improve" the image by removing something distracting but otherwise unimportant. In other cases it's been to make the image tell a different story, and that's what Reuters can't tolerate.

Despite the wording of the announcement, this has nothing to do with speed. It's all about the integrity of the scene.

How is it harder to hide changes on a JPEG? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If you're sending a RAW + sidecar or DNG then Reuters can undo every single change in a couple clicks, if you send a JPEG they have no idea what's changed unless they spend considerable time analyzing. I'm confused... I mean, they accept cropped JPEGs and that's possibly one of the most destructive and potentially deceitful edits, and they have absolutely no way of looking beyond the crop.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 23:34 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: Are all m43 raw files disgustingly difficult to work with in ACR (in terms of skin tone)? As much as I like my m43 camera, when working with portraits, my 7 year old Canon is much easier to work with.

You'd have to be more specific, Panasonic used to get a bad rap for it's JPEG engine years ago, not sure what difficulty you could be having of working with RAWs tho.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alan Brown: Pentax AF 'still' inconsistent?

I'm surprised that this comment is still their 'problem' from magazine articles during film days. I recently got my brother in law's Pentax DSLr off him to see if I could source his memory card issues (losing all of his photos) I thought the AF was very snappy.. perhaps I didn't have it long enough to see 'inconsistency?

Inconsistent is a vague description.. Wonder how it manifests itself? I dare not ask in the Pentax forum as a Nikon user :)

They might be referring to how the lens lineup behaves inconsistently as far as keeping up with the body's AF capabilities... Just a guess.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 14:37 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

PIXJIM: Just got a OM-D E-M5 II and let me say that this little beast is sharp, I mean very sharp with the PRO Lens series. I'm coming from Full Frame and APS-C. I do not have any regrets. Yes, Olympus have to work on their menu system and you have to understand the limitations of the micro 43 sensor, especially while doing night photography.

MFT probably has more native long lenses than any other mirrorless mount, at least after the two upcoming releases, only thing it's really lacking is ultra wide primes and weather sealed primes, maybe a couple more tele primes too... Panasonic has a 35-100 f2.8, cheap 100-300, and it's premium upcoming 100-400. Oly has it's 45-150 f2.8 + TC, 75-300, 75mm f1.8, and the upcoming 300mm f4. I guess if you're looking for reach beyond an 800mm EFL then you're outta luck tho.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 14:34 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

krassphoto: No Fuji??

I think the X-T10 was on the last roundup and the X-T1 is in the next one up...

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 02:51 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

LFPCPH: What happened to the 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras up to $800 ? It was here but I cannot find it any more.

They just haven't linked it on the last summary page, or along with the other roundups under the reviews section (at least on mobile view)...

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 01:25 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)

Five picks out of nine choices? Were the comments on previous picks that scathing? ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 01:17 UTC as 53rd comment | 4 replies
On article Readers' Showcase: Tudor ApMadoc (41 comments in total)

Nice showcase, some awesome shots... I'm curious why he chose to bring two different UWAs on such a trip tho? Specially when his other/standard zoom also goes to 24mm.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2015 at 05:37 UTC as 13th comment
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

b craw: I'm certainly not going to take things to the level of grease wrestling over conclusions derived in a subjective analysis...

But...

Under 'cons' for Samsung NX500: "plasticky"-it has an aluminum top plate, the rest polycarbonate. By comparison, the Sony A6000 (an otherwise well-featured and great performing camera) feels like it is constructed from plastic milk containers. Yet, "plasticky" is not listed in the cons for it. Add in "good ergonomics" listed for the A6000 (and not for the widely-regarded ergonomically superior NX500) and I'm a bit baffled.

The pro/cons look pretty straightforward to me now, and I'd probably recommend people base their decision off that more than anything... Tho lens selection for each system might still be worth featuring there. No touch for the a6000, no EVF for the NX500, poor CAF for the E-M10, and no EFC on the G7 pretty much tells the story of each's biggest weakness. Pick whichever fault you can most easily live with from that list. :p

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 01:38 UTC
On article Olympus shows gains in first half financials (139 comments in total)

Good to see them turn it around, tho being just slightly in the black still seems like treading water... :/

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 00:48 UTC as 45th comment | 2 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrea Georgia: I'm utterly baffled, quite honestly, and have to agree with Andre below.

The NX500 beats the a6000 in most of the important aspects: the NX500 has a better sensor, better low light performance, a much better screen, indeed a touch screen, better video: 4K, a better menu, a better quality and largely very affordable native lens selection, a more solid feel and better ergonomics. It's only missing an EVF in comparison, which is not much of a miss as the screen is so excellent. And again, the a6000 has a poor screen and a poor EVF. The Sony was good, but has been superceded by the NX500 - did DPR test it with the latest FW?

I tried out the a6000 many times even before the NX500 was released and never liked the Sony for its hollow plasticy feel, bad menu, horrid EVF and poor quality native lens selection for those who don't want to shell out for overpriced Zeiss glass.
I think there is a very significant bias at work here, and also with the reviewer of the NX500, as usual, sadly.

Heck, your can always flip the screen up and plant it right against your waist too if stabilisation is the goal... Or, you know, buy a body with IBIS. :p I agree that makes a poor argument in favor of the EVF... If you're not often out in the middle of the day and away from any shade then you can get away without it, if you are then you'll likely benefit from one, it's that simple IMO.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

Androole: I really wish the A6000 had a touch screen. It's such a huge liability on what is otherwise a really good, well-rounded camera. If the A6100/A7000 doesn't manage to combine a touch screen with an EVF, I think I'll have to just give up on Sony...

It's long overdue, but Sony has been doing touch on the A5x00 (or NEX-5x) for years while keeping it off the higher end E mount model(s)... I imagine they'll change their tune if people demand it enough, but Fujis and A7 seem to sell fine without touch so a large portion of the market doesn't seem to care. I think it's invaluable for setting AF points.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 23:46 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

AndrePooh: Utterly amazing that the class leading in everything NX500 not even made it to the "also consider..." part.

Class leading? well according to DxO the sensor scores 87 on par with the D7200 as best APS-C sensors versurs A6000 at 82 ( http://www.dxomark.com/cameras#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo )

Furthermore the direct comparing tool shows the NX500 to beat the A6000 on just about everything especially on build quality and metering and focus accurary, this makes the "plasticky"- what we don't like- all the more awkward since the testreport says: "The NX500 feels solid in your hand and is ergonomically pleasing...." etc,

Sure, arch conservatists will miss the EVF. However more practical others would miss the brilliant tap focus touch screen on other cameras. That's all subjective. The bias however show if you don't let the hard figures speak.

Agreed Androole... I thin both models are kinda puzzling tbh. Sony will happily add touch on the cheaper A5100 (and NEX5 and every other 5 series iteration), yet keep it from the A6000, it makes even less sense than Samsung omitting an EVF but the EVF is ultimately a bigger draw amongst enthusiasts. No one brand gets it all right, Oly has a great EVF, touch, IBIS, etc etc yet has not added OSPDAF on any body outside the E-M1.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 23:38 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrea Georgia: I'm utterly baffled, quite honestly, and have to agree with Andre below.

The NX500 beats the a6000 in most of the important aspects: the NX500 has a better sensor, better low light performance, a much better screen, indeed a touch screen, better video: 4K, a better menu, a better quality and largely very affordable native lens selection, a more solid feel and better ergonomics. It's only missing an EVF in comparison, which is not much of a miss as the screen is so excellent. And again, the a6000 has a poor screen and a poor EVF. The Sony was good, but has been superceded by the NX500 - did DPR test it with the latest FW?

I tried out the a6000 many times even before the NX500 was released and never liked the Sony for its hollow plasticy feel, bad menu, horrid EVF and poor quality native lens selection for those who don't want to shell out for overpriced Zeiss glass.
I think there is a very significant bias at work here, and also with the reviewer of the NX500, as usual, sadly.

A lot of people won't buy a body without some sort of VF, I think that argument gets a little diluted when people start tossing around statements like "serious shooting" and other vague qualifiers tho. One can certainly get away without an EVF for a lot of occasions, seriously, OTOH at a certain time of day relying on a screen can become a real chore.

I've got cameras I only use indoors or at night or as a second body, don't mind the lack of VF... For a body I'll take out in the middle of the day or all day tho, it's certainly better to have one IMO.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 23:33 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

b craw: I'm certainly not going to take things to the level of grease wrestling over conclusions derived in a subjective analysis...

But...

Under 'cons' for Samsung NX500: "plasticky"-it has an aluminum top plate, the rest polycarbonate. By comparison, the Sony A6000 (an otherwise well-featured and great performing camera) feels like it is constructed from plastic milk containers. Yet, "plasticky" is not listed in the cons for it. Add in "good ergonomics" listed for the A6000 (and not for the widely-regarded ergonomically superior NX500) and I'm a bit baffled.

Plastic feeling is such a misnomer to me... There's plenty of things in this world that are built out of plastic and are as rugged as they come, including many pro bodies and lenses. The a6000 probably still has an ergonomic edge over the NX500 for most people simply because it has an EVF, which might very well be one of the things that kept the Samsung off the final three.

I'm surprised they picked two MFT bodies out of three recommendations, tho it makes some sense, I imagine if they were simply trying to appease the fan base they would've picked a Fuji instead. I definitely agree lack of a touchscreen for quicker AF point selection is a big downside but it seems not everyone is as annoyed by that. Outside of that and lens selection the a6000 is still a very solid buy.

I really don't understand why Sony makes you choose between touch and EVF + better controls tho, it's never made any sense but that's how the E mount lineup has been positioned for years.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 23:28 UTC

And I thought my $70 Artisan & Artist strap was expensive... Functionally it's the complete opposite of this thing tho, 'easy glide' adjustment on the fly is the best thing ever.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 23:13 UTC as 53rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: In the USA, if Samsung quit making cameras, nobody outside of DPR users would notice.

My locally owned camera store carries Fuji, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony cameras - but even they don't carry Samsung.

Some? Local Best Buys here have a rather large counter dedicated to the NX system, not quite as stocked as your Canikon section but also further forward in the store (within the mobile Samsung kiosk/section). They don't even stock MFT gear, or Fuji, like at all. They do have a smaller NEX/Alpha display near the P&S desert, but it's woefully outdated... And the Sony Style store finally closed.

Pretty sure I've seen NX at Costco too, tho not recently, Sony seems to have carved some retail space there as well... Never seen MFT at Costco tho I've been hearing of a GF7 two lens combo at other locations. Point is, Samsung probably has more of a retail presence nationwide than even Sony, whether they've leveraged that successfully is another story. A7 bodies have probably outsold anything NX.

The few dedicated photography stores left are like a blip in the radar, sadly...

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 02:19 UTC
Total: 979, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »