Caleido

Caleido

Joined on Apr 3, 2006

Comments

Total: 125, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Dan Chung posts 5D Mark III vs. D800 video shootout article (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

rocknhead: Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera.
I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a better
comparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.

They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.

I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.

Electronics are irrelevant, as everything was set manually. No auto mode.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2012 at 12:48 UTC
On Dan Chung posts 5D Mark III vs. D800 video shootout article (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

rocknhead: Excellent report. Only prob i have is in my opinion handicapping the canon by using a nikon lens with an adaptor on the canon. That does not seem to me to be an apples to apples comparison. I would have thought to be fair you would get say a good tamron lens and use a lens made for each camera.
I understand that by using the exact same lens you are getting a better
comparison in the cameras BUT it is my opinion that would not over weigh the handicap put on the canon camera by using an adapter and a nikon lens.

They are both great cameras. If i did not have a lot of money in canon lenses (5d mkii) I would prob buy the nikon if i was starting over today.

I dont quite see how nikon can put that much technology for that money.

skrulm8 is correct.
There is no handicap whatsoever, the adapter does not nothing besides attaching lens to the body. You are wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 19:01 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (901 comments in total)

Difference between 5DII & III is really, really small.
The (very) high ISO's from D800 look like the 5DII, just bigger.

The D800 beats everyone at low ISO.

There, there you have it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 19:29 UTC as 125th comment
In reply to:

Jean_Baptist_Emanuel_ZORG: am i the only person who believes that nikon and canon releasing two top models each at the same time, both insanely priced are just preparing for a global financial collapse? i might be wrong , just curious

Exactly which body is "insanely" priced, Nostradamus?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2012 at 13:10 UTC
On Facebook adds higher resolution photo viewing article (70 comments in total)

A good thing I guess.

But I'll keep uploading at 900px max.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2012 at 16:14 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies
On Preview:olympusEM5 (1364 comments in total)

Well, I certainly recognize a nice JPEG engine when I see one. Sharpness and detail is very impressive.

The Nex 5N - although bigger sensor - is clearly upstaged.

Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 05:42 UTC as 61st comment
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series article (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

gl2k: Does ANYONE still shoot during daytime ?

According to all those tests and high iso talking I assume that the photographic community has turned to a nocturne society.

At least I do about 95% of my photographic work under good to fair light conditions. Am I a dying breed ? Seems so ...

@J2Gphoto
In the film days you needed flash a lot more and a lot sooner. Now you can shoot with available light all the way to ISO 6400 without worries. I can not see how that is a bad thing or something to do with being sheeps.

If a camera can shoot at ISO 102400, this means that ISO 3200 will be cleaner than the previous generation. Again, I can not see how that is a bad thing or something to do with being sheeps.

I'm sure, back in the film days, when Kodak theoritically released a fine grain color ISO 6400 film, no single photographer would have said "no, we only need ISO 800". No, they would have jumped on it. So why would you say it now??

That does not mean you have to buy every new camera when they come out, but at least face and admit the potential of newer and better technology.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2012 at 18:03 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series article (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aaron MC: I am tentatively optimistic about this camera. I think that this is undoubtedly the G3 sensor, but it appears that Olympus has squeezed a lot of performance from the pipeline. It's still an old sensor, though, and I fear that it enters the market obsolete and will be made only more so with the release of the GH3.

@ Aaron MC.
If you're demanding a m4/3 sensor to perform the same as NEX's APS-C sensors... you're demanding too much.

That said, they are not that far apart. And m4/3 has it advantages elsewhere.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2012 at 03:06 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series article (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

oldalaskan: Almost no color shifting through iso 3200 or even 6400. At iso 12800 though, many areas suddenly show a lack of blue in the blue channel resulting in an ugly, strong, saturated color cast. But at iso 25600 there is, again, almost no color shifting! Lots of noise, true, but only a small drop in color saturation in some of the colors and the blacks are no longer as black as they should be.

I agree. Colors remain intact.

Color accuracy is a lot more important than noise.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2012 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

Essai: does it have Flash support ? :)

Maybe, but that does not mean every Flash based website ever made is converted into HTML5 in a ... flash.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 23:21 UTC
On Just Posted: First Impressions - Using the Nikon D4 article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paddy MBA: I was quite interested in the replies to my previous contributions. Some were very thoughtful. Some, obviously, were not.
I spent my whole business life in marketing. Specifically, I specialized in the development of products that fit into identified market niches. No product can be everything for everyone. Camera companies tend to develop their products forwards; that is, they develop the products from a tech / design standpoint rather than identify the market first and develop the product to meet needs / opportunities (the proper way to do it). The D4 and the D800 are engineering marvels, to be sure, but that's all they are. The Nikon engineers are in love with their technology at the expense of the marketplace. Specifically, what market niche does the D800 fit into? The D4, with its speed and low light capabilities, will be great for indoor sports. But, the D800? Perhaps, the D700 is still a better option.

I don't think Nikon is reluctant to listen to the market. That would be a very silly thing to do for such a major corporation.

The D800 has a one major USP: 39 MP on his sensor.

That is one way to enter the market. You can make or break a deal by aggressive pricing or impressive features. The D800 does both.

You say the D4 & D800 are 'only' engineering marvels. But that is exactly what the market wants: high performance & new technology. So I don't feel you have a strong point, especially if you don't see the potential of the D800 and claim de D700 is still a better option.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 23:08 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III hands-on preview and video article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.

@Micheal_13.
Really? I find it so extraordinary that people still hold on to older specs 'because it is enough'. For them. Imagine that companies would listen to those instead of the market (=majority of users). We would still have noisy 6MP sensors. "Because 6MP is enough".

Instead of saying that the D800 has too many megapixels, you should state that people who don't need those megapixels, should look elsewhere - but of course they won't. Makes more sense too me, than criticising the D800 directly.

Cellphones have IQ very close to compact digicams, bridge camera's have the IQ that DSLR had 5 years ago. DSLR's are stepping into MF territory.

I can't see the wrong in that. You?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 20:10 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III hands-on preview and video article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

profdeming: What a bitter disappointment this camera is. We waited three years for a sensor that has 22 instead of 21 MP? I can't believe the way people are swooning over this. Unless Canon comes out with a high resolution pretty quickly, they are going to lose a big market share to Nikon.

@ Michael
You mean sensor instead of sensors? Or is the bump from 12 to 16MP with the D4 also "heavily critiziced" in your imagination?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Those sample photos are good for a compact camera, but not as good a true FF pro cameras, 41 MPix or not.

41 MPix at f:2.4 is just about the diffraction limit with a 8x11mm sensor size, as extrapolated form the table at the end of this article. And that requires a "perfect" lens.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

@Zodiacfml
Have you even looked at full res samples at 41 MP? Even at 41MP, they are a lot better and sharper than most smartphones or cheap compacts.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 29, 2012 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.
And no, I'm not 108 years old...

Oh you mean calling others who do see the glass as half full and are positive about this - undeniable - step up in technology, I quote, "the ones whose brains are formatted to buy whatever is marketed as the next big thing?" is a fine example of exchange of opinion?

Embarrassing. Like I said. Good day.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.
And no, I'm not 108 years old...

You're completely embarrassing yourself. You should stop now.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

pait: The writing in this article is not at the level we have come to enjoy and expect from dpreview. The alliterative use of the pronoun "you" is annoying. Come to think of it, Nokia's idea of pushing the megapixel myth this late in the game is also annoying.

Well in that case, I guess the megapixel mythe is ... confirmed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.
And no, I'm not 108 years old...

I am not the one having trouble seeing very good new technology with a lot of potential at very good quality or narrow-mindedly yelling out how very wrong it is that a good picture can be taken with - blasphemy! - a cellphone.

Phones are for calling and texting only? It's your right to skip the new digital age and keep your old Motorola from 1997 for texting and calling. Everybody happy.
In the meantime, we'll use smartphones for browsing, connecting with people all over the world, music, HD recording and taking great photographs.

True, you're not 108. But you do your very best to act as one.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.
And no, I'm not 108 years old...

Look at the samples in this article.
How on earth can you call those "appalling"? Are you blind?
Or do you have a medium format Leaf sensor in your own phone?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 00:26 UTC

Even at full res (38MP), it's very impressive. This is more "wow" than the difference between a D3 and a D4 in my book.

http://thenewcamera.com/?p=9292

Remember, this is just a phone.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2012 at 21:53 UTC as 186th comment
Total: 125, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »