ogl

ogl

Joined on Jan 28, 2010

Comments

Total: 419, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Just Posted: Ricoh GR Review article (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: GR RAW files are noisier than Coolpix A files, both in the RAW Comparison tool and on DxOMark sensor ratings scores (GR's 972 ISO vs Coolpix A's 1164 ISO), while colors from the DNG files aren't as good by DPR's own admission (see Con #2) and in the sample images. Yet DPR has RAW IQ between the GR and Coolpix A as the same?

It's can't be lens difference as both lenses scored identically on DxOMark Lens Test (see DxOMark front page for GR lens test).

It's seems fairly obvious that the GR has better ergonomics along with the superb GR menu system. But the A has the class leading Sony Exmor sensor, and seems to produce a better looking files / images (See review samples).

My K-5IIs has green color cast when I use DXO Optics :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 19:45 UTC
On Just Posted: Ricoh GR Review article (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: GR RAW files are noisier than Coolpix A files, both in the RAW Comparison tool and on DxOMark sensor ratings scores (GR's 972 ISO vs Coolpix A's 1164 ISO), while colors from the DNG files aren't as good by DPR's own admission (see Con #2) and in the sample images. Yet DPR has RAW IQ between the GR and Coolpix A as the same?

It's can't be lens difference as both lenses scored identically on DxOMark Lens Test (see DxOMark front page for GR lens test).

It's seems fairly obvious that the GR has better ergonomics along with the superb GR menu system. But the A has the class leading Sony Exmor sensor, and seems to produce a better looking files / images (See review samples).

There are marked ISO and real ISO -
DXO is not the Bible. There is measurement inaccuracy. First of all. The second - do you really think that we could see the noise difference between 972 and 1164.:) ?

Your argument is not weighty.

Go to measurements - and we will see that ISO of Nikon and Ricoh = 99% identical. If you pay attention at SNR18% - we can see that maximal difference in noise 1 dB at ISO6400 in favor of Nikon. But the diffrence at ISO100-3200 is from 0.3 tiil 0.6 dB.

A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. The difference between 1164 and 972 is 1/4 EV.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 18:08 UTC
On Just Posted: Ricoh GR Review article (214 comments in total)

Outstanding. Well done, Ricoh.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 15:51 UTC as 63rd comment
In reply to:

ogl: New Imaging Technologies (NIT) offers world class CMOS imaging sensors based upon a unique and patented pixel technology which provides intrinsic high dynamic range response of more than 140dB, no noticeable fixed pattern noise and operability without image artifacts to more than 90°C.

http://www.new-imaging-technologies.com/
http://photographyforartists.wordpress.com/tag/140-db-dynamic-range/

:)

Are you sure that Fuji-Panasonic technology for digital cameras with big sensors?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 12:46 UTC

New Imaging Technologies (NIT) offers world class CMOS imaging sensors based upon a unique and patented pixel technology which provides intrinsic high dynamic range response of more than 140dB, no noticeable fixed pattern noise and operability without image artifacts to more than 90°C.

http://www.new-imaging-technologies.com/
http://photographyforartists.wordpress.com/tag/140-db-dynamic-range/

:)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:36 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies

It could be sensors for smartphones.
Small sensors with high dynamic range - from 87 till 140 dB are well-known 10 years ago.

Kodak 40 MP sensor has 70 dB dynamic range. 645D with such sensor has 12.6 EV dynamic range. D800E's sensor has close to 80 dB.

The main question - how big will this new sensor be? If it will be small, it's not interesting at all

Important remark: 1.2 times higher sensitivity than Panasonic sensors have now.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:32 UTC as 31st comment
On Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor article (757 comments in total)

I don't understand...It's easy to buy any mirrorless camera with kit zoom. Smaller and faster. Cheaper. With the same result. Or maybe better.
But....$2850 for slowest zoom and APS-C sensor...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 09:21 UTC as 93rd comment
On IMG_18.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

Funny. Missed focus

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2013 at 05:57 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

This lens for Pentax is already at BHPHoto for some time...Strange news.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2013 at 18:00 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

RichRMA: A 25mm f/0.95 Schneider CCTV lens for a 1" (about the size of Nikon's 1 system sensor) sensor costs $2400.00. I figure $900 isn't too much for a 30mm f/1.2 lens.

Schneider - maybe, but all another 1" CCTV lenses are much cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 06:32 UTC

85/3.2 in 35 mm.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 06:30 UTC as 123rd comment | 5 replies
On Just posted: Pentax MX-1 Preview Samples article (55 comments in total)

Really good for such small sensor

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2013 at 10:41 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

micahmedia: "...described as a normal lens, offering 'the same angle of view as the human eye,' according to the company."

Bah! Not the "same angle of view", but similar amount of distortion. Angle of view for a single human eye is wider than a 14mm. Maybe as much as a 10mm in some people. In any case, it's wider than either of these lenses, and the description is incorrect.

It's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Absurd. It's just marketing myth.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2013 at 11:20 UTC

bacchanalia of Samsung 20 MP gadgets...

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2013 at 10:11 UTC as 43rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

d2f: I did not read anywhere that the new lens are AF, are they?

What about 12/2.8? 32/1.8 is with AF, but no info about 12 mm

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2013 at 07:56 UTC

Are 12/2.8 with AF or not?

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2013 at 07:55 UTC as 24th comment
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X20 review article (175 comments in total)

The result is real junk...XZ-2 is far better.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2013 at 07:10 UTC as 52nd comment
On Preview:ricoh-gr (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: Page 9, aside from the moiré where the Sigma excels, the Ricoh puts the Nikon to shame! The test-shot differences are striking.

I'm surprised to not see half the posts being criticism for no viewfinder... are those three people asleep?

There are 2 types of OVF.

Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 16:15 UTC
On Preview:ricoh-gr (295 comments in total)

You can get 21, 28 and 35 mm with Ricoh GR.

Posted on Apr 17, 2013 at 05:51 UTC as 119th comment | 4 replies
On Preview:ricoh-gr (295 comments in total)

The lens of Ricoh kills Nikon Coolpix A.

Posted on Apr 17, 2013 at 05:50 UTC as 120th comment | 4 replies
Total: 419, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »