Light theme [beta]
We're testing a lighter alternative to the regular DPReview theme. Both options will stay.
For more information, click here. Don't forget to leave some feedback.

forpetessake

Lives in United States Transylvania, United States
Works as a exorcist
Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

Never underestimate the stupidity of the moderators.

Comments

Total: 673, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

@moizes 2 - you are finally asking a good question. What if you cover part of the sensor (or just crop in PP -- results are the same).
What changes? -- Everything. It will result in higher magnification in PP to get the same output image size, not only FOV will be scaled with the crop factor, the SNR will be scaled as a square of the crop factor, the DOF will change as well.
Now we want to compare apples to apples, thus we get a lens with FL scaled by the crop factor. We get back the FOV. To get back DOF and SNR we need to scale f-stop by the same crop factor. If you do the calculations, the physical aperture of the lens during these transformations stays the same. Not a surprise if you understand the law of conservation of energy.
And that's the whole math behind the equivalent lenses: to get the same FOV, DOF, and SNR, change the FL, f-stop, and ISO proportionally to the crop factor. That's pretty simple to understand, isn't it.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 04:22 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (742 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: Mirrorless capability is advancing leap and bounce, just wait another 18 months.

When global shutter comes to mirrorless it will kill DSLRs once and for all.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 05:21 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

@moizes 2 -- you are exposing your ignorance to the whole world to see. The only thing worse than ignorance is the arrogance of dispensing insults towards those who actually do know.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

@matthew saville -- that's the first time I see here somebody so happy and proud of his ignorance.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 08:01 UTC
In reply to:

josseee: bokeh looks quite meh...

That's what often happens with heavily corrected aspherical lenses -- the in-focus image is sharp and the bokeh is screwed.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

@matthew saville - the equivalent FF lens would be 600mm f/8, not f/4. You can also crop the FF 300/4 lens to get the same.

This Olympus lens is big, heavy, and expensive, but it's pretty good quality, so all can be forgiven.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 07:23 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.

"Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum?" -- because of easy adaptability (short flange), focus peaking, and lack of good quality native lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 18:07 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: This explains the sudden increase in prices on vintage MF lenses on the web.

There is nothing sudden about that. The prices were growing for many years since the first NEX adapters were manufactured. But that is all temporary anyway. Sony cameras survive if and only if there are many good quality native lenses are available. By that time the prices for the legacy lenses will collapse.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 09:20 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: You can find a lot of interest in adapted lenses in Sony forums, but you can find very little interest in Fuji forums.
The explanation is obvious, the only reason for that interest is due to the fact that manufacturer isn't able to produce a useful range of good quality, reasonably sized and priced lenses.

@neil holmes: "How many "smart"adapters are there for Fuji?
Sony (& M4/3 too) there are lots of smart adapters."

You are confusing cause and effect. Supply is determined by demand. The whole reason Sony has so many adapters and Fuji doesn't is due to demand, which in turn is due to absence of good lens lineup in one system and excellent offers in the other.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2015 at 08:16 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (195 comments in total)

You can find a lot of interest in adapted lenses in Sony forums, but you can find very little interest in Fuji forums.
The explanation is obvious, the only reason for that interest is due to the fact that manufacturer isn't able to produce a useful range of good quality, reasonably sized and priced lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2015 at 19:56 UTC as 47th comment | 26 replies
On article Merry Christmas II you: RX1R II sample gallery updated (138 comments in total)

What's wrong with the red color? Those blooming reds are in such a contrast to generally subdued if not to say flat other colors. It produces an impression of selective (red) color filter. And I must say it's quite unpleasant.

I agree with those who say that there is no other camera so small with such good specs, but when it comes to image quality, in particular colors and tonality, this camera is rather underwhelming.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 20:18 UTC as 30th comment | 7 replies

Somehow this article reminded me a recent South Park episode "Sponsored Content." Can you tell news from an ad?

On another note, if that was a freeware some people may try it and some may even use it. But as a business idea it's DOA, nobody is going to buy this soft.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 06:26 UTC as 47th comment
On article Got Game? Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II USM gallery updated (57 comments in total)

Looks good, but as a responsible shooter I want to know the answers to the most important questions of our time. The answers should be embossed on every lens barrel.
Is it certified organic? Does it contain GMO? Does it contain any chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity? Was it tested on animals? What is its carbon footprint?

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 01:26 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

fenceSitter: DPReview about the Pentax 645Z: "the larger sensor area does mean more light is gathered than comparable full-frame 35mm DSLRs."

I'm afraid this is patently false. Pentax's fastest medium format lenses are so much slower than those available for full-frame DSLRs that it completely obliterates any light-gathering advantage that the larger sensor might otherwise have.

To wit, a full-frame DSLR sensor behind a lens @ f1.4 gathers more than twice as much light as the 645Z sensor behind a lens @ f2.8, and f2.8 is the fastest there is in Pentax's current 645 portfolio.

@Jonathan Lee: Just two points to help with your confusion: 1) ISO is not part of the exposure; 2) equivalent lenses with FL*cf, Fstop*cf, and therefore the same physical aperture (where cf is crop factor) produce the same DOF, FOV, photon noise on any format. That's why people commented on the fact that slow lenses on 645Z make it lag the modern FF cameras in everything but 0.15 stops of DR and possibly resolution.

This place isn't really suitable for discussions or arguments, but doing a little web search should provide you with plenty of references.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 00:56 UTC
In reply to:

Luego: Image samples appear soft, even stopped down to F5.6.

Looking at this image, the roof tiles turn into mush with no details at all.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS4896x3264~sample_galleries/6535865662/5626324860.jpg

Can DPR explain why images taken with my X100S at F5.6 OOC JPEGs appear much sharper with more details?

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4819176598/photos/3310596/town-hall

Jpegs utilize a much stronger sharpening. Default Adobe sharpening is very weak for Fuji raw files.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Everything points it's a very good lens with excellent resolution border to border, light and small. But f/2 is just too small aperture. At this time it's only $50 cheaper than f/1.4 version, which is much preferable in most cases. Fuji should have been developing f/1.0 lens instead.

@photominion: "significantly faster in AF mode" -- depends on definition of 'significantly'. Everything I've seen so far is that it's insignificantly faster. The f/1.4 lens is very fast with the new firmware.
"incredibly good border/edge performance" -- irrelevant for a fast lens.
"weather resistant" -- irrelevant for many people.
But a slow f/2 aperture is a huge drawback because the main purpose of this and other 35mm primes is exactly low light shooting.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 23:16 UTC

Everything points it's a very good lens with excellent resolution border to border, light and small. But f/2 is just too small aperture. At this time it's only $50 cheaper than f/1.4 version, which is much preferable in most cases. Fuji should have been developing f/1.0 lens instead.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 20:00 UTC as 12th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Honestly? I prefer the 1.4 version, why? Not because its a 1.4, Id be happy with a 2.8 But because this one is just so dumb looking in my opinion, the shape of it that is. Does not fit the retro style they are going after in my opinion.

Don't care about the looks, but a stop difference is not to be sneezed at.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Was just shooting my K-50 with a 35mm f2.4. 16MP sensor, similar focal length prime, etc. IMO even the stopped down shots here are not that great. The f2.8 shot of the Settlers Cabin shows soft zones even mid frame (i.e. left mid frame near the outerwear when compared to the right side outerwear, etc). Or complete absence of detail in the upper left 'H' letter when compared to letters in upper right.

Worst of all I hate how the bokeh highlights turn into triangles in the corners. Pentax 35mm f2.4 does not do that, and the triangle bokeh highlights are more reminiscent of affordable EF primes (like the 50mms) on a FF sensor.

Only chiming in because I just got done pixel peeping the crap out of images I shot with my 35mm f2.4 wide open. But as always, copy to copy variation is a b*&% and its all luck of the draw. I'm immensely satisifed with my 35mm f2.4 which I think I paid $80 for.

It's well known that Adobe default sharpening is very weak for Fuji raw files.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

fenceSitter: DPReview about the Pentax 645Z: "the larger sensor area does mean more light is gathered than comparable full-frame 35mm DSLRs."

I'm afraid this is patently false. Pentax's fastest medium format lenses are so much slower than those available for full-frame DSLRs that it completely obliterates any light-gathering advantage that the larger sensor might otherwise have.

To wit, a full-frame DSLR sensor behind a lens @ f1.4 gathers more than twice as much light as the 645Z sensor behind a lens @ f2.8, and f2.8 is the fastest there is in Pentax's current 645 portfolio.

@Rishi: you may think that 645Z dynamic range would be much better than any FF camera, but it isn't. According to DR measurements the Pentax is just ~0.15 stop better than Sony A7R or Nikon D810.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 08:54 UTC
Total: 673, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »