Tord S Eriksson

Tord S Eriksson

Lives in Sweden Gothenburg, Sweden
Works as a bus driver/retired
Joined on Jul 3, 2003
About me:

Like to draw, paint, and photograph nature, and identified
flying 'objects', like the moon, bumblebees, aircraft, and, not least, birds!

Comments

Total: 413, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

retro76: One things these images don't convey is just how amazing the Nikon 1 sensor is when shooting raw.. I shoot raw and process my J2 images with Aperture and the images are very hard to discern from APS-C sensors at low ISO sans a hint of noise. Of course at higher ISOs the bigger sensors perform better no doubt. One thing worth noting is when I process Canon 60D, OMD-EM5, and my Nikon 1 files one thing I do notice is how much better the dynamic range is (in highlights) compared to the Canon and Olympus sensors.

As someone who handles both E-M5, and V1 shots, I can assure you there is much more in-camera sharpening in the OM-D's shots than the V1's. I wouldn't call it dynamic range, more dynamic latitude, so you can do more with the V1's images than with the E-M5's.

Noise is present in both cameras, even at base ISO, and the V1, in my mind, handles low light better, as its noise is very TRi-X-like in low light, giving the images a nice structure. But the OM-D's resolution is better, thus wins DxO's tests!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 23:48 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

NameFinder: Makes not much sense to me.

With additional grip and external viewfinder, the Nikon 1 V3 is probably almost as large as a mirrorless system camera, for example an Olympus E-M5 or a Panasonic GH4.

And with nearly 1200 USD for the above set also apporaching a comparable price.

A 10-30 mm standard lens (equaling about 27-81 mm Full Frame) with f-stop 3.5-5.6 is quite unimpressive in low light - probably requiring a good amount of in-camera noise reduction.

Better solution in my eyes:
e.g. a mirrorless micro-4/3 camera (or APS-C Cam) with somewhat larger sensor and larger pixels (assuming 16 Megapixel on m-4/3).

Or - if exchangeable lenses are not a must - a real compact camera, like the Sony RX100 v3, with faster zoom lens and built-in pop-up viewfinder (good idea, Sony!).

No, overall I'm not convinced - sorry!

The reason I like cameras with exchangeable lenses is dust on the sensor. Sooner or later it will appear on you beloved compact, and what do you do then?! Send the camera off, and wait, and then pay a hefty sum. I did that a few times and then decided enough is enough!

So no more compacts for me, than you!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 23:39 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phototroll: Why spent hundreds of dollars more than a Panasonic FZ-100 with 1" sensor, all the lens you'll ever need, plenty of pixels, all positions you'll ever need display etc. No dust, no separate viewfinder. Or go for Sony RX10.

Yes, these are bigger. But once you have the extra, or just one GOOD, lens with this Nikon 1 V3, you probably will carry more. Not to mention the grip to get....enough grip.

Tip: you can make next Nikon 1 even smaller. By leaving the battery out (just a cable connector to the battery holder in your shirt pocket is enough, right). Of course Nikon will offer a special batteryholder to slide into the flash shoe. Just $ 49.-- including the extra short cable needed! Do not laugh please, Nikon 1 goes to places other camera builders do not dare to go. Down.

FZ-100?! I thought they disappeared a long time ago?!

Actually, the FZ-1000 is not a bad one, lighter than the RX10, but a big lump all the same!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 23:34 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

sceptical1: I really do like the concept of this camera, but the 1' sensor is a bridge too far for me, especially when I can cameras that are not that much bigger with better image performance. I can imagine it being a very good wildlife / action camera with practice and the right lenses and that is of some interest, but why would I think that Olympus (or others) will be better with the right lenses? I have an OMD-10 and just received an OMD-M1 (shot with it the first time yesterday) and the OMD-M1 looks to be a pretty good "action" camera with much higher potential image quality and with very little difference in price (I got mine with a 12-40 2.8 lens for under $1900). That compares very well vs. the Nikon. Further, Olympus is planning on a 300mm f4 prime that should be unreal for wildlife (and probably quite expensive...it is what it is) Unless you really need the very high frame rates, I think there are many better options.
BTW - I love Nikon and have been shooting them forever.

The longest native lens for the OM-D is 300mm, just as the Nikon 1 is, and the lenses (when released) cost about the same, covering the same focal range (both are 70-300 zooms), but the Nikon lens is a far better lens (my wife have had the Oly lens and now have the Nikon lens), smaller, lighter, sharper, and faster focusing.

The Nikon lens reaches longer, faster, and is a more modern lens.

My wife would love to get a modern version of it! And as usual with Olympus lenses, you have to pay extra for the hood, a lot!

Olympus is very good at shorter focal lengths; like the superb 12, the new 17 (the Pan 20 might still be better, the Pan 25 surely is!), the 45, the outstanding 75, to mention a few.

But no good long prime lenses, as far as I'm aware. Mysterious!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 23:32 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jorginho: Price + no EVF + visibly worse IQ (just enlarge that pic with the kids on the bike. Is that sharp? Well..not stopped down...).

Compare this with the A6000 or the EM1, XT-1, GH4. All these cams have clearly better IQ, are good at AF-c, do have very very good EVFs (Sony has a reasonably good one). Oly and Panny are weathersealed and of course the latter has 4K video....

I think with the EVF 600-700 dollar would be more reasonable.

The weakest point of the sensor is dynamic range it seems, something not demonstrated here.

If this cam had the DX10 sensor and an EVF built in, it would change the situation quite a bit. Looking at the future, the 1 system might become very viable though....

Even the old V1 could do snips of 4K movies.

All sensors's dynamic range varies with the size of the sensor.

Don't know what the DX10 sensor is, so can't comment on that.

The sensor in the RX100 seems to be a bit better in most respects than those in the Nikon cameras!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 23:20 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

mcshan: Okay, you can add an EVF. I get the hotshoe . Still...if you were to shoot the V3 with something like the $900 32mm lens attached will image quality top the tiny Panasonic GM1 and 20mm combo? The Panasonic is smaller but has a larger sensor . How does the Nikkor 10-30 kit lens compare with the GM1's 12-32? I am familiar wit the Panasonic's output and am wondering how the V3 will compare.

The V3 samples (well done DPR !) here are good but not outstanding.

"The V3 samples (well done DPR!) here are good but not outstanding."

When were review pictures taken with any camera outstanding?! I haven't seen any, ever, taken by DPReview staff (I think that is the general idea, to use the kit lens and take ordinary shots, with no clever tricks applied, the camera set factory default, and so on).

The size of the sensor, in ", or mm, affects the results a lot, as does the number of pixels, so a CX sensor, roughly a fourth of a APS-C sensor in size, can't compete with a PM-1, when it comes to definition, and noise, but sharpness, bokeh, and IQ is another thing!

The V3's focusing speed is truly amazing, much better than the V1's or the V2's, and they themselves are pretty amazing!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 23:16 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just Ed: Just don't understand the appeal of the Nikon 1 system.
Had the V1 when it was discounted and while it seemed well made the images were just way to noisy for me, got rid of it. That was a 900 dollar retail camera with evf, the new one is 1200 sans evf.

Just doesn't work for me......

Ed, did you use it like an old film camera, following the same rules: Low ISO in low light, or in harsh daylight, high ISO in soft situations, like mist, smoke (common today at stage performances)?!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 22:55 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nemsi: No offence, but what's the whole point of the 1 system, with small sensors and buying extra lenses for the camera, who are those for? Really sorry, I guess it's just me.. :/

There are many points, but not least those who want to have long telephoto performance, but can't afford a 800/5.6 lens, like those who like motor sports, bird lovers, and probably a lot of other uses.

The quality of the images in good light is very close to most APS-C/DX cameras, and you can use the same lenses, with maintained VR and AF.

In low light I switch to my FX camera, but for the rest the CX cameras have taken over, totally.

The DX cameras collect dust, as I see no advantage in using them. The new VR 70-300/4.5-5-6 is superbly sharp, and fits easily in my jacket pocket.

That equals a 200-800/4.5-5.6 on my FX camera, and such a lens would cost at least $30,000, if there was one available on the market. And that would definitely not fit my jacket pockets.

It is also easier to handle if you like to do macro photography, and most of the native lenses are surprisingly sharp, like the 32/1.2, that is just as sharp as the famous Sigma 35/1.4 Art, which I use on my FX camera!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Gosman: I love this article and seems to come out of my own mouth. Indeed I'm the one on the Nikon forum that pinned the name "Guinea Pigs" upon the early adaptors of the D800. I urged everyone to wait. What I didn't know was that it would take Nikon 2 years to upgrade and make the must needed changes. It is a huge lesson to all of us about product life cycles. This is why I decided to stay with Pentax and the K-3 which is now at the height of the crop sensor life cycle. I decided to stay away from full frame for awhile and see where the product cycle takes it along with the mirror less cameras. And yes, I am a Kodachrome baby and it is the first thing I thought of when I saw the ISO (we called it ASA) was 64!

Not being a Pentax user any longer, I must agree that the K-3 seems to be the final iteration of a long line of once great APS-C cameras. There is nothing like it from any other maker, just as there is nothing quite like the E-M1. Far beyond any other m4/3, leaving the E-M5 as a cheap relative.

And the D810 is a gigantic leap forward in FF land, oh, how I wish I could afford one!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 11:10 UTC
On Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review preview (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

DaytonR: Oh wow ! What a nice camera , I wish Kodak had released cameras like this a few years back when I was looking to upgrade from my compact ! Its good to see Kodak still in the game , well done Kodak !!

You are joking, I persume!

The camera has nothing to do with Kodak but the sticker, as Kodak as a company is totally gone, dead, and buried six feet under!

Looks OK, though. And hopefully it will be a success!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

Lawrencew: Next step is to dynamically adjust the curvature in camera, so that it is optimised for the focal length chosen by the photographer.

If they can do in body stabilization by moving the sensor, and now build curved TVs where the curvature can be altered, then it wont be long before they can alter the curvature of the sensor in camera too...

(where's the Patent Office btw :-) )

Still much easier to construct the lenses, as the vignetting problem will be all gone, and probably the chromatic issues as well. Retrofocusing needs will not disappear overnight, but problems like the NEX-7's with wide angle lenses will just not be there!

I can imagine the sensor design optimized for 35mm on a full format camera, and then various front ends added, according to taste!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 11:14 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boky: DaveE1 and dpmaxwell

The camera brand means nothing to me.

I want from Sony a P&S, pocketable camera that will make nice, vibrant photos with sense of perspective. The RX100III is far from meeting any of these requirements. Accepting this low standards as something out of this world, shoots a clear message to Sony that they do not have to invest in further improvement for a year or 2. This is not helping anyone. If you like the RX100III size, feel, menu structure, usability and blend, dull, blueish photographs - I do not.

And I found the right place to express my revolt. I also want to benefit form this nonsense publicity and dPreviews' once-a day / month-long review.

Nick

I wonder what camera in that size that Nick prefer, as I can't think of anything that looks crisper, even up to ISO 12800. And if he sees a blue cast I think he must be using a Samsung TV as monitor.

With any small sensor noise is a problem, but the RX100 III seems to have the same amount of noise at ISO 6400 as the Nikon V3 (which has the same size of sensor) has at ISO 460, that's is darn impressive!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 09:04 UTC
On Am I missing something here? article (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: The criticism about it lacking lenses is fair. Its at least $400 overpriced (you can get a state of the art D7100 at its price level) and yet there are NO wide angle lenses to go with it or any serious wide bright primes.

If Nikon made a 14mm/f4, a 16mm/f2.8, a 20mm/f2, and a 24mm/1.8, a 28mm/f1.4, and a 35mm/f1.2 special, these cameras would be flying off the shelves like hot cakes.

But Nikon is failing because its not investing a PROPER lens system! What is Nikon known for??? Extremely good wide angles! It should lead with its strength!! Nikon execs are so dense sometimes!

I added a Panasonic DMW-GWC1 .79X wide adapter to it, worked like a dream. Sadly you need to tape it to the 10 (to stabilise it I put a 48-52mm step ring in between, as the lens, the adapter, and the step ring are all 52mm), as the adapters supplied are just too wobbly, and the wide adapter ends up too far out from the front of the 10. So not pretty, but very good!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2014 at 23:32 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)

I am totally thrilled by all the supposition about Sony's grip on DPReview.

Just because a camera is better than most it makes it suspect, evidently!

I own an old Sony, or two, but in no way are they my favoured tools, but that sensor in the RX cameras, that's really something extra, Nikon and Aptina can't do something remotely like it, nor do Canon.

That is very impressive, I must say!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 21:43 UTC as 185th comment
On Am I missing something here? article (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

Saxon Liw: Possibly useful for birders who can opt to use a cheaper and lighter 300/4 lens instead of a 600/4 on an APS-C body.

If I am worried I'm going to miss some shots I use my D600 with the 80-400 for birds milling about in the air, or the V2 plus the 30-110. Hopefully the new Nikon 1 70-300 will prove to be the fantastic lens we hope it will be ;-!)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

Peter CS: See what happens, if you post a blog somewhere about how to circumvent Facebook copyrighted material! You would have a firestorm of legal action rain down on you the size of a huge volcano! This information posted by a "barely 21 year old" basically gave away the formulas for circumventing the copyrights on most digital images. At 21, this obviously intelligent and educated individual,should have thought twice about his actions. He was "of age" to vote, enlist, drink, be tried as an adult, etc. All adults most certainly need to contemplate the scope of their online actions. Professional photographers do not give up their weekends, family time, etc. to photograph graduations for fun! Friends and families of new graduates are always welcome to produce their own photographs, as mine did, documenting this significant event/special day! Thanks to good and cheap, fully automated, digital technology, there is no reason or excuse to resort to such bad behavior...

Yeah, Facebook is very active in persecuting infringements, but employ this guy in a leading position themselves — how come?!

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 23:24 UTC

On his Facebook page he is telling how great it was to go to Singapore " to host our first ever FB hackathon in Asia".

So now he's in charge of FB's hacking efforts?!

I bet they hack other people's software, not Facebook's own!

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 07:31 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

absentaneous: a theft is something that causes someone real damages not fictional ones.

if I take your car then in order for you to have a car you'll have to get another car. that will cost you money.

if from your website I copy a photo you took of your car and use it on my website it won't cost you a penny because the photo of the car will still remain on your website. all you might lose is fictional income that is based on the presumption that I would buy that photo if I couldn't just copy it for free.

of course it's still morally wrong but it's not a theft but more like improper use.

That is definitely theft, no matter if I have another copy of it! I have friends who are illustrators, and they run into this, again and again, that smart guys like you pay for one publication, and then reuse it over and over.

I am glad to say it always costs the culprit a lot, not just due to the compensation and damages he has to pay the original artist, but also the cost of the lawyers, the judge, bailiffs, and so on, lands in the culprit's lap. Rightly so.

There have even been cases where bloggers, by just linking to a picture on another site, have been forced to pay the full price, plus damages.

So indeed it is a theft, no matter what you think!

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 07:20 UTC
In reply to:

Mirrorless Crusader: This is not image theft, you are transforming an image with a watermark into an image without a watermark.

EH?! There have been examples of artists, who have used copyrighted photos as base for their own illustrations, and had been taken to court for doing just that!

So the amount of transformation have to be quite substantial, to avoid legal worries, like writing (in essence adding a watermark) across a copyrighted photo, that is, surprisingly, OK!

The problem is actually (with illegal copying) that it affects the photographer who makes a living from selling the photos — only rich guys can live by working totally for free.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 07:10 UTC

Encouraging others to steal copyrighted pictures is still a criminal offence, I bet, not only in the US.

And why would this seem to be applauded by Facebook is not that surprising, as that company tell you explicitly that Facebook have the right to freely access your uploaded photos, to do what they want with them! And they always strip the EXIF from your photos for that reason only, I bet!

If anyone here believed the water-stamp on your pictures was fraud-proof, then you have a very naive conception of the world around you!

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 06:56 UTC as 75th comment | 3 replies
Total: 413, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »