Marek Rucinski

Marek Rucinski

Lives in United Kingdom Plymouth, United Kingdom
Joined on Jan 18, 2010

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

I bought a slim filter once and it's a mistake I will never make again. With slim filters it's not possible to use lens caps which lock mechanically onto the lens. Push-on lens caps used with such filters come off easily when the camera is carried on one's neck or in a bag. If your photography involves carrying the camera around (like mine does) avoid slim filters at all cost.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:43 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

nitroman: Is the dMax of 4.0 good for scanning transparencies ?

This depends on the particular emulsion obviously, but even notorious Velvia 50 reaches D only about 3.5 in the usable range. Keep in mind though that Dmax reported for the scanners by the manufacturers is usually a theoretical figure determined by the bit resolution of the DAC (4.8 = 16-bit, 4.0 is probably 13 bit) and the actual ability of the scanner to resolve high densities is limited by the practical noise response of the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 20:33 UTC

"which bring full-frame imaging to the mirrorless interchangeable lens market"... not. Leica's been there since like 2009...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 23:09 UTC as 81st comment | 6 replies
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)

I just can't wait to see what "pure photography" means apart from disabling video capabilities in the camera firmware.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 20:50 UTC as 183rd comment | 1 reply

"fully optical correction of distortion" is the newspeak of the month...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 09:16 UTC as 44th comment | 1 reply

Looks very nice by the cuts are a little Michael Bay-esque :-)
It's the space requirements, I suppose...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2013 at 10:59 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Marek Rucinski: This is an example of an interesting practice: put some hardware in the device, for which the user pays (the cost of the wifi chip was included in the price), and then increase the value proposition of the product (by enabling the feature) *after* the product has been sold (!)... or not.

I think this practice is not only dishonest, but also damaging to the client (who pays for a feature he may never see enabled in the end) and therefore should attract attention of relevant regulating bodies.

Sadly, examples of very similar practices start to pop out regularly (uncompressed hdmi in Canon 5d III, cropped hdmi output in Nikon D600), but this seems to be the boldest example to date. In case of Canon/Nikon it's difficult to prove dishonesty, because they can claim genius, and incompetence of their engineers, respectively. Situation here is different, because there are physical chips that were obviously meant to be there from the beginning, but were intentionally not enabled.

> dara2, NetMage

Let's put the (dis)honesty issue aside - you're both right of course and I'm convinced I'm right as well, and furthermore I think that there's no conflict between what we both say (perhaps I just struggle to explain it).

I think the core of what I wanted to point out is that we're witnessing an interesting practice becoming more and more widespread, a practice which demonstrates that the camera companies have wrong priorities from my point of view (these priorities may be right from their point of view though). And that, personally, I don't like this practice becoming widespread.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Marek Rucinski: This is an example of an interesting practice: put some hardware in the device, for which the user pays (the cost of the wifi chip was included in the price), and then increase the value proposition of the product (by enabling the feature) *after* the product has been sold (!)... or not.

I think this practice is not only dishonest, but also damaging to the client (who pays for a feature he may never see enabled in the end) and therefore should attract attention of relevant regulating bodies.

Sadly, examples of very similar practices start to pop out regularly (uncompressed hdmi in Canon 5d III, cropped hdmi output in Nikon D600), but this seems to be the boldest example to date. In case of Canon/Nikon it's difficult to prove dishonesty, because they can claim genius, and incompetence of their engineers, respectively. Situation here is different, because there are physical chips that were obviously meant to be there from the beginning, but were intentionally not enabled.

> dara2

The problem is that 1) the consumer *does pay* for the "hidden" hardware, and all R&D effort necessary to get it working (which may occur after the product ships). No sane company incurs losses to itself. 2) After the product has been sold, it's totally up to the company whether they graciously enable the "hidden" feature or not. They are totally free to decide to scrap the subsequent R&D efforts. In the end, you paid for it already...

In short, the "dishonesty towards the client" part is that the client pays more for a device that could have been cheaper.

Of course what is actually interesting here, is the possibility to alter the product *after* it has been introduced to the market. This allows a company to react to what the competition does *after their product has already shipped*. Cool, isn't it?

Instead of focusing on creating genuinely better products, camera companies seem to be putting lots of efforts in devising sneaky practices of controlling sales.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 18:53 UTC

This is an example of an interesting practice: put some hardware in the device, for which the user pays (the cost of the wifi chip was included in the price), and then increase the value proposition of the product (by enabling the feature) *after* the product has been sold (!)... or not.

I think this practice is not only dishonest, but also damaging to the client (who pays for a feature he may never see enabled in the end) and therefore should attract attention of relevant regulating bodies.

Sadly, examples of very similar practices start to pop out regularly (uncompressed hdmi in Canon 5d III, cropped hdmi output in Nikon D600), but this seems to be the boldest example to date. In case of Canon/Nikon it's difficult to prove dishonesty, because they can claim genius, and incompetence of their engineers, respectively. Situation here is different, because there are physical chips that were obviously meant to be there from the beginning, but were intentionally not enabled.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 22:25 UTC as 20th comment | 8 replies

What we learn is that even giants like Steve McCurry can miss 1 out of every 6 photos despite shooting such an important roll as "the last roll of Kodachrome".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 20:58 UTC as 70th comment
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1511 comments in total)

+1 Leica M-Monochrom

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 11:18 UTC as 458th comment
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (498 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marek Rucinski: "for no logical reason that we can work out, the actual image area is smaller than those dimensions by about 5%, and the difference is made up with a black border around all four sides of the video image area."

In your face, "end user" :-)

Of course this is easily fixable in firmware (most likely by toggling a single bit) should some pressure from competitive products appeared in a few months time...

The reason that dpreview "can't work out" (of course they can) is called "product differentiation" and is perfectly logical, from the manufacturer's point of view. Manufacturer's point of view does not need to align with the customer's point of view - at least as long as the latter can't do much about it.

> Amadou
The theory the "feature" in question is a "bug" is dismissed by the fact in D800 firmware this is an option. Say again, you put an option in case the user after second thought prefers to use the buggy firmware?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2012 at 15:40 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (498 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marek Rucinski: "for no logical reason that we can work out, the actual image area is smaller than those dimensions by about 5%, and the difference is made up with a black border around all four sides of the video image area."

In your face, "end user" :-)

Of course this is easily fixable in firmware (most likely by toggling a single bit) should some pressure from competitive products appeared in a few months time...

The reason that dpreview "can't work out" (of course they can) is called "product differentiation" and is perfectly logical, from the manufacturer's point of view. Manufacturer's point of view does not need to align with the customer's point of view - at least as long as the latter can't do much about it.

A "bug"? Trust me, it took much more programming than doing the thing right in the first place. To illustrate, what takes more effort in Photoshop: displaying an image exactly as it is or downscaling it by an appropriate factor and adding a neat 5% black border around it?
Since the result is aesthetically pleasing, it is very unlikely it happened by chance.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2012 at 20:46 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (498 comments in total)

"for no logical reason that we can work out, the actual image area is smaller than those dimensions by about 5%, and the difference is made up with a black border around all four sides of the video image area."

In your face, "end user" :-)

Of course this is easily fixable in firmware (most likely by toggling a single bit) should some pressure from competitive products appeared in a few months time...

The reason that dpreview "can't work out" (of course they can) is called "product differentiation" and is perfectly logical, from the manufacturer's point of view. Manufacturer's point of view does not need to align with the customer's point of view - at least as long as the latter can't do much about it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2012 at 18:55 UTC as 56th comment | 5 replies

This demonstrates how much more could have been squeezed out of currently available hardware if only we managed to hack the firmware (and I'm sure this applies to all manufacturers).
April 2013 :-))) In your face, customer...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2012 at 15:54 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies
On A sneak peek at our forthcoming camera test scene article (323 comments in total)

How much dynamic range is this scene intended to have? 3 stops? 4?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 07:34 UTC as 121st comment
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

dark goob: Just think, if you had an external HDMI monitor you wouldn't have to bend to the ground. Or a camera with a rotating screen.

Why doesn't Canon put a damn rotating screen on the Mark III? I would buy one if it had it.

Good old solution to this problem is called an angle finder.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

Superka: I would prefer my Helios-40 for filming.

> Helios 44 is Biotar copy, not Helios-40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_%28lens_brand%29
Computer says "no"...

I regularly use a few Soviet lenses myself, but I think I'd swap them for the Zeisses they were "derived" from instantly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2012 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

Superka: I would prefer my Helios-40 for filming.

Which, interestingly, is a copy of Zeiss Biotar :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Marek Rucinski: Is anything known about further updates to Lightroom 3? Does Adobe plan to update LR3 to support recent cameras (at least for a while), or does LR4 release mean LR3 becomes obsolete instantly? I failed to find any related information on Adobe's website.

Right. Has anyone stumbled upon any official statements from Adobe?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2012 at 10:01 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »