NCB

Joined on Mar 19, 2013

Comments

Total: 92, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Magical colours. That's what matters.

OK, it's good for action as well. Exceptionally good.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2016 at 21:19 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1111 comments in total)

Normally I wouldn't by a 28mm fixed lens camera. It's too wide for a lot of what I shoot, and cropping in post isn't the answer; I'd rather see the essence of what I'm after in the viewfinder. But the game changer here is Leica's digital crop; even at 50mm you end up with an 8mp file, enough for most purposes. I could live with that.

I'd have liked to have seen more landscape shots in the gallery, using jpeg. DNG files "adjusted to taste" create more questions than they answer.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 17:28 UTC as 79th comment | 1 reply
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (526 comments in total)

Thought with the GX7 you could still use lens-based IS in those lenses which had it? This review implies that only in-body IS is available.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 17:59 UTC as 106th comment | 3 replies

Sigh. After a couple of years of shooting with the Nikon Df I still don't understand the sly digs at it. It's fine.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2015 at 15:28 UTC as 69th comment | 6 replies

Bet one of these appears in the forthcoming Nikon Dm.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 13:04 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

RichRMA: "I still believe the OVF is (cough, cough) FAR better than any new-fangled EVF thing!"

OVFs give you a great view of what you are taking. An EVF potentially gives you a good view of what the result will be. Unfortunately, EVFs rarely give an accurate view of what the result will be. Yet. One day they may. Currently it's all down to personal preference. I feel more comfortable with an OVF.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 13:02 UTC

Just wondering, are we going to get a proper review of the Pentax 645Z, complete with example snaps?

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2015 at 21:43 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

NCB: I have a Df. Love it. It's exactly the sort of controls I want to use, and the output's great. Don't understand DPR's remarks about duplication; there are more typical DSLR controls there if you want to use them, but you don't have to. A film camera user would take to the Df in an instant.

It's never a camera for everyone; other cameras do some things better. However, compare for a moment your example output for the Df and the A7RII. To me the Df's output is magic; the A7RII's is crude. I respect the A7RII for what it does, but for quality real-world output I'd look to Nikon, Canon, or indeed Pentax.

electro: you may be right about the slower AF, and some of the other points (although not the IQ). But whether those matter depends on what sort of shooting you do. I shoot landscapes and take my time over the shots. The Df is fine for that.

I think you and DPR are missing the point. And the point about the Df is not that it's some retro nostalgic gimmick. It's that it offers a different sort of shooting experience, and one that works. Yes it's the same sort of thing had with film cameras, but there's nothing wrong with that. The Df is valid for today.

The Fuji T1 offers a similar experience to the Df, yet DPR gave that rave reviews. Somehow DPR seems determined to find imperfections in the Df experience, with the placing of controls for example. An experienced film shooter would have no trouble at all with the Df; the controls are fine.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2015 at 12:28 UTC

I have a Df. Love it. It's exactly the sort of controls I want to use, and the output's great. Don't understand DPR's remarks about duplication; there are more typical DSLR controls there if you want to use them, but you don't have to. A film camera user would take to the Df in an instant.

It's never a camera for everyone; other cameras do some things better. However, compare for a moment your example output for the Df and the A7RII. To me the Df's output is magic; the A7RII's is crude. I respect the A7RII for what it does, but for quality real-world output I'd look to Nikon, Canon, or indeed Pentax.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2015 at 22:09 UTC as 93rd comment | 15 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $1200-2000 (327 comments in total)

Entry-level full-frame cameras? Come on, you're pulling our legs. There's no such thing. Entry-level???

People who buy full frame are (nearly all) experienced photographers who have a good idea of what they want. Budget may come into it, but so do others things like size and weight, and that's before you get onto the particular things like the characteristics of the output they're looking for. And budget is as likely to be as concerned about cost of available lenses, possible more, as it is for the cost of the body.

Should people really be thinking in terms of, just to give one example, trying out a D610 before they move on to a D750 or a D810. Nope, and they won't be. Other things will govern which of those three, again just sticking with Nikon as an example, they choose.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 16:48 UTC as 65th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)

Wow!!! Nikon has a large chunk of the high end professional market (Canon has the other large chunk). Nikon keeps those customers informed of where it's heading, with a simple basic announcement. Makes sense. What else do you expect?

And cyber-space gets clogged with hysterical claims of the end for Nikon. You wish. How sad can some people get?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 20:54 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

QizmoGeek: I have owned the A600, SL1, D3300, D5300 (mentioned a few times in the discussion string), X-T10 not to mention the prior versions of the EOS M, Rebel and Lumix noted in this review roundup. I happily sold my A6000 after having it about a week. Why? Basically, the a6000 is way over-hyped in my opinion and really lacks image quality. I have a pocket RX100ii which provides higher image quality than the A6000, hands down. Most of the cam's on this list also beat the A6000 in IQ. It is, however, great for videos (if you don't need a mic). I'm currently shooting the X-T10. It'i my first Fuji and I am totally surprised with the image quality. It blows the a6000 (an most on this list) out of the water (clarity) and in low-light has no issues with IQ when high ISO is needed. If you are looking for a video cam that takes good pics, go with Lumix or Sony. If you are looking for a camera that takes great photos, you might want to try the Fuji X-T10. It's fun to shoot with as well.

A very good point about the A6000. In fact, most reviews of it said that the jpegs were poor, being way overprocessed. Now of course there will be some who argue that a "serious" photographer should be using RAW and primes anyway. To me this is nonsense; this isn't what this review is supposed to be about. The whole point about ILCs is that they are flexible; if you can't shoot jpegs and use a zoom to get good results then it's not a good camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2015 at 17:26 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

anthony mazzeri: This is a new camera review site but to be honest, the best value in this price category is probably not a new camera at all but an older pro-model.

I'd like to see a value/performance comparison between the new models versus a used full frame D700 on ebay for around the USD$800 range. I suspect the main feature difference of the newer cameras is really just video and smaller size, otherwise I can't see how any of them could be recommended over a FF DSLR for IQ at the same price.

Some of these cameras can be found NEW way below the MSRP. That's where you start to get good value.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (275 comments in total)

The reason the a5100 shouldn't get it is that, as you pointed out, it lacks a load of stuff such as a viewfinder that the a6000 offers, and indeed so do other cameras which are on your list.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 23:21 UTC as 63rd comment | 5 replies
On article 2015 Superzoom Camera Roundup (188 comments in total)

Pity the Nikon P610 wasn't included in the main review. It would have been worthwhile seeing how it stacked up against the Canon SX60S, on paper a very similar camera, and indeed against the Nikon's own P900, offering much the same but in a distinctly more portable body.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 23:04 UTC as 21st comment

Great idea. Now for somebody else to do the same at a much more affordable price. We've had the Nikon A; how about a Nikon M?

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 22:13 UTC as 120th comment
In reply to:

NCB: I hate these "here's the jpeg; now see what you can get from the raw file" examples. Totally ignores the fact that a couple of simple tweaks in Elements can dramatically improve what you get out of the jpeg.

But if you're going to do a comparison between jpeg and raw then the comparison needs to be valid. Untweeked jpeg versus tweeked raw isn't valid.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 12:47 UTC

I hate these "here's the jpeg; now see what you can get from the raw file" examples. Totally ignores the fact that a couple of simple tweaks in Elements can dramatically improve what you get out of the jpeg.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 13:11 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
On article Nikon D5500 real-world samples (129 comments in total)

Great natural colours. Were these all taken with the Standard picture control?

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 21:15 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D (321 comments in total)

I don't see the problem with two cameras offering the same sensor but different features. Nikon has been doing it, successfully, for years; look at the D3xxx, D5xxx and D7xxxx series. The key to that is offering different bodies with different facilities. By and large the image quality produced by those bodies is the same; it's a question of how you produce those images and other related issues.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 17:01 UTC as 61st comment
Total: 92, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »