deep7

deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 414, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkokich: There seem to be so many other cameras that do more for less.

What video specs? Read dpreview's other story. They actually put a chart in to make it easy. Huge difference. And, um, 4K is 4K, all the same resolution! And, again, you say low DR but Canon say high - obviously they have way, way more credibility than some unknown on an internet forum.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 07:50 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

bronxbombers4: Other than from a size aspect, which is a real matter true and something that will be legit critical for some absolutely, but other than for size, the BM Ursa Mini blows this away in every possible regard for only a little bit more money. It has a much bigger sensor, much fancier stuff built-in, the quick samples video from each make the IQ look much better too (of course it remains to be seen for sure), does 60p 4k, I think it does 150fps HD, I believe it does HD raw video too, it takes EF lenses, etc.

Bigger and take EF lenses? Not the same sort of camera then, is it?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 07:47 UTC
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkokich: There seem to be so many other cameras that do more for less.

We went through this in the other thread. That's actually not true because, if you consider the full video specs, none of the cheaper hybrids match it. If you care less about video and more about stills, sure, there are cheaper alternatives that will still give you 4K. They may well be bigger though.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 07:03 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Long: If one were to actually read the patent, you could would see that it claims to increase resolution by using the optical image stabilization system to move the image across a fixed sensor.

As opposed to similar systems on other cameras, which typically use additional actuators to move the sensor itself. And I see it as a typical Apple refinement, using the existing moving part (OIS) to accomplish the task instead of adding additional moving parts. Elegant.

So while the basic effect is the same, the mechanism by which that effect is accomplished is completely different. And as such, worthy of a patent.

Absolutely!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 04:20 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (507 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Compared to the Nikon D610 & D750, that seems to share a similar sensor, the Sony STL-A77 II seems to be incredibly noisy, with at least 2EV difference when putting it on ISO 1600 and D610 or D750 at ISO 6400!

Totally deceptive!

1) Borrow camera
2) Go out and take photos, deliberately pushing the sensor beyond reasonable.
3) Go home, process RAW files, be prepared to be absolutely amazed.

Less easy, far more useful (because you know the exact light conditions when the photos were taken).

4) Ignore armchair experts and people with agendas (not me, I don't own Sony gear, beyond the sensor in my phone).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 04:12 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"

About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.

About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.
Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.

Grow up.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 04:04 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"

About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.

About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.
Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.

Dear oh dear. Leandros S, there is no need to be rude, even if you don't read things as they are written.

To the others: It is stated that the Pentax system requires a tripod and still subject. The Olympus system takes around a second, also with those two requirements. What speed advantage does that give Pentax? None, in any practical, realistic sense. I don't believe a time has been given yet anyway? Secondly, there is plenty of published evidence now that the Olympus resolution increase is real (and there are plenty of m4/3 lenses able to take advantage of that). The improvement in colour accuracy and moiré are also there for anyone to see.

Again, the article is misleading, at Olympus' expense.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (507 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Compared to the Nikon D610 & D750, that seems to share a similar sensor, the Sony STL-A77 II seems to be incredibly noisy, with at least 2EV difference when putting it on ISO 1600 and D610 or D750 at ISO 6400!

Totally deceptive!

So you haven't used an A7S. Thanks for confirming that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 18:57 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"

About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.

About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.
Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.

By the time you set up your tripod etc., the odd millisecond is immaterial. The "bigger footprint" = more resolving power, hardly a disadvantage, in fact quite the contrary!

The point remains, the article is misleading on that topic.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 09:26 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"

About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.

About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.
Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.

Yup, I noticed that. They somehow made the slightly better Olympus system seem slightly worse! Tsk tsk.

Either way, it is a great feature and the benefits have been clearly obvious on the EMII.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 06:52 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (507 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I understand why this camera didn't get the Gold award. It isn't quite the camera that the NX1 is. However, isn't it great that a camera with so many great features with this price point is not considered to be exceptional?

The cameras of today are very good compared to what our options were just a few short years ago.

K E Hoffman, I can think of at three Sony A mount zooms which are a constant f2.8.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 02:09 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (507 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: Compared to the Nikon D610 & D750, that seems to share a similar sensor, the Sony STL-A77 II seems to be incredibly noisy, with at least 2EV difference when putting it on ISO 1600 and D610 or D750 at ISO 6400!

Totally deceptive!

Mescalamba, have you actually used an A7S? I did some tests with one this week and played with the RAW files and had to conclude it's the cleanest sensor I've ever tested. The little bit of noise that appears when you push it very hard is very easy to control. There's plenty more to like about that sensor too.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

humbala: What's the difference between focusing range and working distance?

Focus distance is to the sensor, working distance is to the front of the lens element.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

BadOmen: I was hoping for some improvments in 1:1 rendering. On my 4k monitor it still takes about a second to render a 1:1, no noticeable improvement. Fyi, I'm using a 5930k processor and triple sli 970's (Lightroom is only using one of the cards though)

WACONimages: It's after you "develop" that it needs to reconstruct a 1:1 preview, based on your edits. You won't see that in the develop window, because that is only making a partial and temporary 1:1 of the bit that is on your screen. Do a quick pan of your image and you will see what I mean.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 07:39 UTC

Decent enough article but why rant on about some random feature that isn't part of Lightroom and which no-one expected to be part of Lightroom? Strange!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 19:43 UTC as 111th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

BadOmen: I was hoping for some improvments in 1:1 rendering. On my 4k monitor it still takes about a second to render a 1:1, no noticeable improvement. Fyi, I'm using a 5930k processor and triple sli 970's (Lightroom is only using one of the cards though)

One second would be sheer luxury! Ten is quite common for me with LR5. It was around two with 1.4. There is no point in making 1:1 renders if you intend to process your images at all because it will then make new ones anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Once upon a time, during the reign of S. Jobs, they released some code from Safari to the open public, so anyone could benefit from their development. Thanks to that move (calculated?), we had a browser revolution in the smartphone arena, which enabled far better standardisation of mobile UI and experience (something desktop environment never achieved).

Aperture should have been the same. If Apple does not want it, release it to the public. What would be so difficult about that? But I am afraid they did not do that because of Adobe, and because of the strange new ways Apple thinks nowadays, specially about its professional line of products.

After 18 years of Apple after 1998, I think they are at their worst when it comes to care of creative professionals, who once were bread and butter, highly regarded and touted by Apple. But nada anymore — in their videos one can see only celebrities wearing Apple Watches and endless crowd using iPads.

I didn't use iOS6 but noticed the move from iOS5 to 7 being quite negative. Not just the design but the interface got clunkier, with more taps needed. I moved on to 8, which actually has been a slightly better experience with one or two things tidied up but I really notice the RAM thing now.

Oddly, I've been using a Surface Pro for work and getting to love the new Windows interface. I never thought I'd find anything Windows to be more intuitive than anything Apple but it is! No RAM issues at all with that either. However, it's still Windows, with the odd thing breaking and crashing, ho hum (though much less than in the past).

I'm biding my time before replacing my iPhone, wondering if the next one has extra RAM. Just in case, I'm looking sideways at other options for the future, something made more easy as Apple quietly moves away from being something perfect for me to something less and less useful and more and more clunky. Oh dear. Bet I'm not the only one.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

TomBe: I think it's absurd to compare the two! There is no comparison. This is only a gratuidous article intended to lure attention. I challenge the author to discuss this with me and explain to me how in his right mind he can even think the two have anything in common

Good grief! It drew you in. Does that mean you identify yourself as part of "the masses"? Is that bad?

If you didn't find any new information, then that's unfortunate for you. I found new information and that was great. To call this article "troll-like bait" is ludicrous and just shows you misunderstood its point, which was to provide a helpful, objective point of view for a solid proportion of the readership who use Apple computers and are interested in photo management software options.

Then again, people get emotional over all sorts of things so I'm not surprised if one or two people lose objectivity.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

D610 User 1867: At first it felt like the iOS designers weren't talking to the OS X engineers (AirDrop anyone?), now it feels like the iOS designers are taking over Apple.

Fine. But why walk away from things that have been genuinely useful for many years? You'd think that a company that allegedly has many resources at its disposal would be able to produce simplistic, mobile-friendly software without having to gut the more serious capability it built a good reputation on. You can have both. The Surface Pro my work provides me proves that.

Actually, there is something else going on. Moving from iOS5 to 7 (I skipped 6), I was really annoyed by how many things needed a second or third tap, that just worked before. It's the same with Photos, you have to click and click again to unearth basic function within the programme. Much more so than with iPhoto, for example.

No, the whole emphasis is the same as the obsession with "thinness" in the hardware. Apparent neatness/simplicity at the expense of true function - and even if the function is there, it has to be tucked away or it wouldn't look ______ (insert word of choice here, I'll pick "bland").

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

TomBe: I think it's absurd to compare the two! There is no comparison. This is only a gratuidous article intended to lure attention. I challenge the author to discuss this with me and explain to me how in his right mind he can even think the two have anything in common

Look at the forums on the internet. Heaps of people have been asking if Photos can take the place of Aperture. The article is a nice, clear, objective discussion which answers the question well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 01:50 UTC
Total: 414, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »