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: 398, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Schwermetall: I'm a owner of the RX100 and very satisfied but I think 12MP @ 1" can be very good.
We will see it in the near future @ DPR :-)

You just aren't getting it. It's not a point and shoot little camera that happens to be capable of video. It's a serious tool. If it's not for you, walk on by. Calling the target market "Nobody" because you don't understand it isn't helpful.

I didn't think this was for me initially but, having thought about it, this could be the camera that would replace my ageing but 100% dependable video camera, at an inflation adjusted similar price point, with prospects of lasting and being usable for just as long. And it might even take very nice photos too. Does that make me Nobody?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

Petrogel: Unfortunately Apple is moving from bad to worst, i don't believe that iPhotos is the evolution of Aperture, Lightroom 5 has already replaced the five year old aperture 3 successfully.

"Obviously you have no real workflow". It would take a special kind of moron to write this, based on the information provided. Workflow was Aperture's biggest problem.

And when I say "moron", I'm not trying to join the ranks of the very rude that frequent this website. I'm being very restrained. If the reply was to someone else, I apologise.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 11:01 UTC
In reply to:

nekrosoft13: wow, this things going to be a disaster like TX1, Pro1, and other weird Canon products did in past. Looks like weird product made of mixed up parts.

Canon needs to learn from Sony and Panasonic how to make a 4K camera.

The Pro 1 was gorgeous. They should make a Pro 2....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 23:05 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Schwermetall: I'm a owner of the RX100 and very satisfied but I think 12MP @ 1" can be very good.
We will see it in the near future @ DPR :-)

I just looked up the specs of an RX100. The Canon lens is much less than two steps slower (F2.8-5.6 v f1.8 - 4.9) and has a vastly greater zoom range. It's a completely different kind of camera anyway and clearly worth far more.

Schwermetall may be right - it will be interesting to see how 12MP works on that sensor size, which was his point, duh!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

Petrogel: Unfortunately Apple is moving from bad to worst, i don't believe that iPhotos is the evolution of Aperture, Lightroom 5 has already replaced the five year old aperture 3 successfully.

Well, Lightroom allows you to easily track and move your photos on your hard drive or external drives without getting splinters scratching your head like Aperture does. It's really simple that way. Lightroom also does a nice job of balancing sharpness and noise in a way that Aperture can't come close to. Also, the Lightroom interface is much more intuitive to use for people whose brains are wired like mine. Etc, etc.

Capture One is a little harder to get your head around but it sure does a nice job on the files.

I've had Aperture for years and it's confused me for years. Yet my I.Q. is above average...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 22:39 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

PB47: In terms of depth of field the lens is equivalent to f7.6-15.2. I'm guessing most of the range will be f12+. That's pathetic, especially when someone is paying $2,500. At the very least, given the size and weight of this thing, the lens could have easily been a constant f2.8, if not faster. Just look at some of the recent fixed lens cameras Sony, Panasonic, and Canon have come out with. This camera has a lot going for it but that slow lens...oooooof! I know why Canon did it though- mustn't spoil the consumers. If they want any sort of cinematic shallow dof in their shots they need to step up. Their strategy is so cynical. I really hope it costs them with this camera.

I would think the target market would see decent depth of field as a good thing, especially being able to achieve that in a compact package without having speed/sensitivity issues. For those who want the same video specs and a shallower depth of field, there are other options but they are not cheap.

And when you give "equivalent" numbers, you are referring to one particular format in photography. Why not suggest everyone gets a large format video camera so they can have nearly zero depth of field? Such silliness!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 02:31 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

xsamie: Wait.. fz1000 & rx10 specs, but the price ouch.

GH4 + Nebula4000 would still be under

fz1000 + gh4 would still be under

oh well its good to see Canon fight back

Check out the other story. The Canon specs are much higher than the FZ1000 and RX10.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 02:26 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (813 comments in total)

I like the concept, while admitting it's not for me at this stage in my life. However, it seems to have the problem all 1" sensor cameras have of abruptly clipping highlights, even here on a Canon promo video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbTd5DbSk_g . Or am I missing something? Either way, I wish Canon well with this deliberate move to provide for a specific market.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 22:57 UTC as 189th comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (813 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlexisH: I guess the most intriguing aspect for me is the ergonomics of this camera. It does seem to attempt to mix the ergonomic needs of a still and video camera. This is the big deal for me, regardless of specs.

I find still cameras rather terrible for video and I wouldn't want a video camera control layout as my control scheme for a still camera. It would be an achievement in itself to find out a scheme that addresses both needs and Canon looks like they tried to do that with this model.

I'm looking forward to reading about how successful they were at this.

I recently videoed a wedding using an Olympus EM1. Up till then, I'd been happy to use the camera for occasional video but, as the wedding progressed, I found the ergonomics more and more of a problem. This Canon would be miles better as a video camera, I'm sure. How it works as a stills camera remains to be seen but the lack of built in viewfinder makes it unappealing to me. 12 megapixels is heaps.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: This kind of lens choices is why I like the m43 system.

Don't worry about "equivalency calculations". Just learn to use the system you have - if it's micro four thirds, it's a very versatile and capable system in its own right!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Mini DisplayPort? Not HDMI? What's wrong with Microsoft?

Microsoft just lost some potential users who uses tablet as HTPC b/c part of the reason that Windows has "windows media center" which is kind of like TiVo.

One of my HTPC is Windows which is not too bad even TiVo's OS is more stable than Windows.

BTW: Windows RT is a joke, and finally Microsoft gets rid of Windows RT.

You're not wrong. It almost feels like Microsoft was involved in the changes! To be fair, OSX peaked at Snow Leopard. It's now more about gimmicks than reliability, sadly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Mini DisplayPort? Not HDMI? What's wrong with Microsoft?

Microsoft just lost some potential users who uses tablet as HTPC b/c part of the reason that Windows has "windows media center" which is kind of like TiVo.

One of my HTPC is Windows which is not too bad even TiVo's OS is more stable than Windows.

BTW: Windows RT is a joke, and finally Microsoft gets rid of Windows RT.

I'm a long time Apple user and have detested Windows for years. However, my job provided me with a Surface Pro and I love it. For the most part, I really like the super-easy Windows 8.1 operating system too (though it is still Windows underneath, with the weird glitches that provides). Apart from occasionally having to detach and reconnect the magnetically-attached keyboard, the hardware has been bullet proof. It's a great gadget.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 19:59 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (788 comments in total)
In reply to:

EduardoKleinFichtner: Image Quality is better than OM-D EM-1 and the score is better on Olympus camera? I disagree.

I'm still slightly bemused that I chose an EM1 over the original A7, just over a year ago, yet know it was the right decision. The A7 was lighter, cheaper (!) and felt nicer in the hand. Focus was fine, sensor was gorgeous ... but lens choice was totally unsuitable for what I do. I LOVE my EM1!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 19:40 UTC

Just a correction on your caption under the 300mm/f4 photo. The lens, in fact, is exactly as fast as a 600mm/f4 prime on a so-called "full-frame" format! That is, at the same sensitivity and wide open, you would use exactly the same shutter-speed to get the same exposure.

In practice, focal lengths like that can be very depth-of-field limited. To shoot the same depth of field on the 35mm format would require stopping down the lens two stops, making the larger format's lens only quarter as fast for the same photo! (Or you could throw away the "ISO" advantage instead.)

After all these years...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 19:30 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ThePhilips: > but any movement at all results in unpleasant artifacts.

A thought crossed my mind: if they would change the sequence in which they take the photographs, randomize it so to say, the artifacts actually might look less ugly.

Right now they are so apparent, because the sensor shift follows a regular pattern, amplifying the distortions of some motions. If sensor shift pattern wouldn't be as regular, fewer of movement patterns would look creepy.

If it's only elements within the scene that suffer, you could take a normal exposure, up-res it, and blend in the bits which are a problem in software (very easy to do). Ok, some minor parts of the scene would not have the high detail but there would be no distracting artefacts.

Just a thought!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 19:25 UTC

"I'm sure our R&D people will be listening as well". Very reassuring! Thanks for the video.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 18:59 UTC as 24th comment
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

I never accused you of brand bias.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 17:57 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

Ta. That's bizarre - the full list of pages didn't show here yesterday. Sorry for my error.

I found this bit telling: "You'll note that the highlight range gained at the higher DRO settings can be so extensive (up to 1.7 EV) that the highlight cutoff falls off the right side of the chart. Despite our chart not having enough highlight range to show you where the highlight cutoff occurs, you can expect to gain back in highlights whatever negative exposure shift you apply - while still maintaining proper midtone brightness." That's nice.

It seems you can play that curve (DRO or Slog) to push the curve off both ends of the charts. Maybe that's where Sony get their DR number from? I think I'll borrow an A7S and try it out for myself (I have tested both the A7 and A7r and came very close to buying the A7, hence my interest here).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 19:45 UTC
On 05-ISO250-DSC00631.acr photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Is the model's hair blue near her fingers or is that bad colour fringing? Either way this is a classic example of a photo which would be vastly improved by stopping down the lens!

Thanks for the clarification on the blue. I quite like it, just didn't look natural.

The focus is strange to me because the hairs on the tip of the nose are in focus, while the eyebrows are not. That makes the photo a bit creepy and very un-3D. However, you belong to a new school who appreciate different things to us more seasoned types and it was your choice, not mine. Not only does my comment rest, but I encourage you to experiment with controlling that depth of field (as opposed to just going for the currently trendy extreme) and you just might see what I mean. Or not, no big deal.

Anyway, it seems we've not seen eye to eye on a few things lately so I'll be careful with my comments in future. I'll stop harassing you, other than to say I think your photos have "edge" that is frequently missing on review sites. That is a good thing in itself but opens you to comment and criticism. You'll get tired if you defend all of it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 08:18 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (478 comments in total)
In reply to:

neil holmes: That the dynamic range is lower at base ISO than some other cameras is a given (though it is actually still higher than many others).

To me, since this really is a low light camera, it is the dynamic range AT high ISOs where the camera stands out.
How did the DR test against (any) other cameras at ISO 12800 or 25600? (normal ISOs for me with the A7s).

One other thing I didn't see mentioned but may have missed....the versions of the camera. Its seems you can have a NTSC only version or one that is both PAL AND NTSC.

EDIT the original A7 review still has a few errors. IE the camera does have continuous AF in speed priority mode (unlike this a7s) and the buffer is not unlimited (or at least not limited to the card size) for jpegs but does have about the same limit with an 8GB card as it does for a 64gb card.

...cont'd

Yet that point fails! You show results from pushing exposure a huge amount, resulting in both cameras producing results which are acceptable for small prints but neither of which are acceptable for any critical use (e.g. A2 print, magazine page, anything for a paying client). Plus, you've had to use a much bigger file and spend more time and resources downscaling it to make the 36 MP sensor match the 12.

Finally, the HDR shot from a Nikon 810 you posted recently (same sensor as A7r), roughly comparable to the HDR sunset posted in this review, shows a level of blotchiness in the skies which is visible even when the image is downsized a lot. The shadow murkiness and noise are pretty horrible. The pushed A7S file is much, much cleaner, hence my comment it is a forgiving sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 02:51 UTC
Total: 398, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »