Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

I don't reply to private messages.


Total: 491, showing: 281 – 300
« First‹ Previous1314151617Next ›Last »

It would have been a lovely small camera and the price is right if not a subpar high ISO performance and mediocre lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2013 at 08:49 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply

It looks longer and heavier than 28-70/2.8 FF lens. Did Sigma simply glue those 4 elements from SpeedBooster to the 28-70 lens and cut the long end due to vignetting?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 17:27 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On Review in Progress: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S article (70 comments in total)

Don't fret the moire: most lenses just don't have sufficient resolution, most scenes don't have regular high special frequency patterns, in many cases focusing is off just enough to eliminate them, and finally the noise reduction takes resolution down quite a bit to eliminate any traces of the high frequencies.
On the other hand, if you notice moire in your pictures, you can be proud of the quality of your lenses and your camera :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 23:13 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies

I don't understand people fascinated with this lens. It's equivalent to 24-70/5.6 on full frame, but doesn't achieve anywhere close resolution, it offers pretty low value for money.

I still have an old Pentax-FA 24-90mm/3.5-4.5 lens which is almost the same size and weight, covers bigger range, collects significantly more light, and have a lot better resolution on FF too. Did I mention Pentax is several times cheaper? Even using 10 year old technology we should have had the same size and weight 12-45mm/1.7-2.2 m4/3 zoom at 1/3 the price. If they ever make a 1:2 focal reducer, that what one will get using that Pentax lens.

Great achievement, Panasonic made a less capable zoom at much higher price.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2013 at 01:02 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies

The only problem with rental model -- lenses are so easy to damage, scratch, etc. and it might not be easily visible upon inspection.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2013 at 22:50 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

raztec: Fuji is making cameras for all types of people. The X series for the pros and serious hobbyists and the super zooms for the undiscerning masses who equate bigger with better. Can't really fault them for the idiocy of the masses.

It's hard to sell P&S cameras nowadays, so manufacturers have to invent something to catch an eye of an average ignorant consumer. I can't fault them for trying.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

Dodi73: mmm
the longer the sillier... they can stabilize everything, simply put is the user the weakest point... Heck, with a reflex I have problems pointing anything longer than 300/400mm, go figure a 1000mm... It's like giving a super sniper rifle to not even a sunday luna park shooter...

Imho, they (whatever brand "they" means) should make much shorter zoom and increase sensor sizes. Even a 20x (20/400) or 25-300 would be much more appealing with better sensor specs. Actually, at least for me, even a 25-250 would be enough, given a superior performance. A camera must not be useful only at noon or in full day, a truly versatile camera must give you good result whatever the light. THIS is the key point.

It's mostly targeting ignorant P&S shooters. The 44x zoom, 1000mm equivalent, etc. -- all those buzzwords that resonate in uneducated shooters, which don't understand that sensor was simply reduced to a miniscule piece of silicon to get those numbers and as a result the image quality went down the tubes.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: I'm not sure the lens on the long end is usable at all, it's equivalent to 1056mm f/40 in FF format. With such a dim lens even in best sunny day one has to use high ISO, slow shutter and will get a lot of noise and smeared action.

Q: "how do you figure f40?"
A: that's simple, the sensor is about 1/6 crop of FF, so the equivalent f-stop is 1/(6.5*6), i.e. 1/39. If I put a 4x teleconverter on a slow 250mm f/5.6 FF lens I will get 1000mm f/22, and it still will be almost 4x faster than that lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 21:01 UTC

I'm not sure the lens on the long end is usable at all, it's equivalent to 1056mm f/40 in FF format. With such a dim lens even in best sunny day one has to use high ISO, slow shutter and will get a lot of noise and smeared action.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 19:09 UTC as 19th comment | 7 replies
On Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1 Hands-on Preview preview (355 comments in total)

As it was predicted DSLRs won't surrender to mirrorless without putting up a good fight. This is the first such blow -- a camera almost as light and small as mirrorless, but with the full DSLR advantages with hundreds of DSLR lenses fully compatible.
Competition is good, keep them coming!

P.S. It actually beats Olympus OM-D in all respects including weight! See comparison:

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 17:59 UTC as 86th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

PC Wheeler: Hey, even if the GH4 was announced tomorrow, we'd not have our hands on it this year in all likelihood :)

There will be no GH4, they are afraid of this number :-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 02:13 UTC
On DxOMark investigates lenses for the Nikon D800 article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: I've been saying this for years. Basically, if you use a cheap zoom lens on a 24 MP camera your image won't even be as good as a clean 4 MP image.

Proven time and time again, better to have an excellent lens on an average body, than an average lens on an excellent body.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 22:47 UTC
On DxOMark investigates lenses for the Nikon D800 article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

wadap0: Why do I keep seeing ridiculous comments like "Nikon has no control over their sensors". Everyone knows the D800 sensor was manufactured by Sony. Can anyone reasonably assume that Nikon was not involved in the DESIGN of the sensor? Sony can make sensors at lower cost than Nikon due to economies of scale, but the sensor DESIGN is definitely Nikon's - that is what is important to know.

It's more likely Sony has several verified designs and grades and Nikon picked one.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 22:45 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Preview preview (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

MPerks: Nice to see that Panasonic has FINALLY fixed the weird rendition of red that their previous bodies have suffered from (compare the heart on the playing card vs the GH2, for example).

still too much magenta

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 02:08 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Preview preview (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: It's ENORMOUS! Why the hell would you buy an M4/3 camera when it's as big as an APS-C DSLR? I have an OMD and for this reason alone the GH5 is no competitor (no IBIS either...)

Big doesn't make it bad. In fact, it's a lot more comfortable than OM-D. What makes it bad is a small 4/3 sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

Rambazamba: If Fuji had continued with the Nikon mount they wouldn`t need a roadmap.

F-mount is not a bad idea. The size of the camera is limited by the grip, not the mount; the size of the lenses is limited by image circle, speed and presence or absence of mirror, not the mount. Going with F-mount would have made a lot of quality lenses available, but new lenses would still have to be designed due to CDAF limitations and improvements in size & weight, especially on the wide end due to the absence of mirror. Still having Nikon working on your side would have been a big advantage.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 19:46 UTC
On Preview:nikon-coolpix-a (442 comments in total)

Let's see, Sony RX100 cost 1/2 of this one, and has very similar lens on short end F/4.9 vs F/4.2 in FF equivalent. I would expect images at 28mm to be very close in all respects, but Sony has many other advantages. So if Nikon wants to compete in this segment, they should lower the price to under $500, otherwise it will be yet another fiasco.

Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 19:39 UTC as 102nd comment | 1 reply

Going to the logical end, a single pixel can work in a binary mode (detecting light or darkness) similar to dithered images of printers. When they create pixels with 50nm pitch then it can be possible to have image quality close to today's sensors.

But pretty soon, they will hit the law of diminishing returns, the quantum noise is determined by the total light collected by the surface of the sensor. For example, even ideal (noiseless) micro 4/3 sensor will not be able to achieve the performance of today's (not ideal) FF sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 19:50 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

forpetessake: This is essentially the same idea as multiple exposures using electronic shutter. For example, you take 4 normal exposures and merge them into a single image, you get 2 times better SNR (and dynamic range) and effectively pushing ISO 4 times lower. You can do it today with cameras like Sony NEX, except the shutter is not electronic, it's mechanical, so there is problem with moving subjects.
On the subject of the dynamic range. The displays and prints have a lot more limited dynamic range than modern sensors. In order to display higher dynamic range you need to compress it, the more you compress, the less natural image looks. Until displays with much better dynamic range are built, increasing dynamic range of the sensor has little advantages.

'It will just take one normal length exposure.' -- it is and it isn't. It's done by reducing ISO of the sensor (compared to traditional implementation), after that it's normal, but exactly the same thing happens with multiple exposures, except all pixels are reset, not just those that otherwise would be saturated.

'key is doing it in a single take' -- it's defacto electronic shutter, what is one take? and who cares?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

lost_in_utah: More like US Patent Troll.

"but that's the nature of patents..."
Not at all, the idea of patents was to prevent unfair competition by stealing somebody's ideas. Patent trolls are basically in a business of planting minefields hoping somebody steps on them. The former is constructive the latter is destructive.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 19:34 UTC
Total: 491, showing: 281 – 300
« First‹ Previous1314151617Next ›Last »