David Julian

David Julian

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Freelance Photographer, Author and Educator
Has a website at http://davidjulian.com
Joined on Nov 12, 2007
About me:

Travel, nature and fine art photographer David Julian has spent 30 years capturing the essence of places, people and light with creative vision. He also enjoys patiently sharing his knowledge on land or at sea to help travelers capture the beauty and spirit of their adventures.
Since 1991, he has led over 60 workshops and won several national awards for fine and commercial arts. His images have been commissioned by leading corporations, collectors and published in books, blogs and magazines including Nikon World, Outside, Geo, Islands, Conde Nast Traveller, Audubon, Outdoor Photographer, Digital Photo Pro, Rangefinder and The New York Times Travel magazine. When not taking on assignments or developing projects, Dave kayaks, speaks publicly and instructs group and individual photography workshops in the US, abroad and online.

Comments

Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

BobFoster: Good info. I’m puzzled why you didn’t include the Olympus Stylus 1 in the list of main rivals. I’m a Canon DSLR user and have been looking for a bridge camera as a take anywhere camera. Although I will use it for indoor shots, I will use it as a travel camera and for hiking, canoe tripping and snow shoeing. I looked at the G16 and G1 Mark II but decided on the Olympus Stylus 1. I’ve had it for 2 weeks and am very pleased with it.

Hi Bob, Glad you like the Oly Stylus 1. Personally, I prefer 24mm over 28mm for a travel camera. I do love the 240fps on the Oly, and that's a great zoom range for sure. Curious how the Oly will do in moisture over your winter use.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

igzy: Thank you for the review! I also considered this model for a travel camera.

Photo composition and framing is superb - great work!

Camera output is weak imo, poor DR, meh color rendition, I think expected better from it given its price.

One aspect that wasn't covered was focus acquisition speed. How did it fair, for moving subjects, and in low light without flash?

igzy, thanks for the kind words.
I did not test this camera's focus in low light on moving subjects.
I can tell you that finding focus in low light is not lightening fast, but I disable focus-assist beams on ALL my PAS cameras when shooting people, and rarely photograph people in darker conditions.

Do check the linked I listed in a response below for additional large images to check out

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2014 at 00:10 UTC
In reply to:

Kristian Kjaergaard: Pleasant reading.

It says at the bottom of the first page: "Editor's note: After review, three images in this article did not meet dpreview's standards for image quality and have been removed."

I'm curious about those standards. Do you have a list of requirements, or were they just 'too ugly'?

Kristian, the photos were not at all unsightly, but not up to DPR's sense of what is best to show here. A few were just too noisy, less than sharp when enlarged, or just not as good as others I later provided in replacement. Find the link I included in my post below, and you can see more images. I now know what to avoid when testing/submitting images from a smaller-sensored compact.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2014 at 22:11 UTC
In reply to:

David Julian: For those of you who want to see more samples to judge the CAMERA by, here is a link to a Photobucket of 12 images at the max resolution available. A few are repeats from the set above, just for a SBS comparison. Some images were improved a bit in Adobe LR5, and some are left at defaults. Take into consideration the viewing magnification, and of course the camera settings data available for each. A few could have been improved with more time to try optimal settings tailored for the subject and conditions, but most were shot literally while on the go.

http://is.gd/Kppiam

@ Flectigon: The big bubble shot #18 is ISO 320 at f2.0, wide open and with -2/3ev fill flash from camera. BTW, if you enlarge any shot above, and drag it into PS or LR, you have all the metadata of the original.

@ Mike FL: Well said about the Bright tilting LCD over a pricey or inaccurate EVF. I tried the Canon EVF loaned by DPR, and didn't like it well enough to pack it for AK. At $300, it's not a significant improvement in usability. One thing the EVF has going for it is the periscope position, VERY helpful for macro and low-angle work when stray light washes out accuracy in a horizontally-positioned LCD.

I'm headed to Cuba in a few weeks. Would love to do a travel feature for DPR if they'll have it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2014 at 22:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: It seems two "Water Drops Leaf" photos have issues by looking the in focus "water drops" in #9 and #11 especially the one "drop" in the #9's center of leafs:

Q1: Caused by blown-out highlights? or

Q2: Caused by localized flare (due to wide open at the f/2 per IR)?

Any thought? Or better if David Julian can show us the same shots from his different camera(s) for comparing.

Mike, I have two images featuring water drops. Looking at the PhotoBucket image of the Lupines #9, the droplets look very crisp to my eyes, no flare present. In the shallow DOF water drops image, # 11, I'd have to say probably.

I went back and looked through my G1xmkII shots at the widest apertures, and the f2, 2.5 shots have varying degrees of contrast loss, possibly due to some flare. Definite CA, which once corrected improves the edges of HC areas of the image to some degree. Eeven slight amounts of moisture film or dust will decrease contrast, appearing most obviously in the wider apertures.
The camera was on loan from DPR, so unfortunately I cannot test it further.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 01:48 UTC
In reply to:

Boky: The photos look quite bad... overexposed with no detail, with large amount of peripheral distortion, no sense of perspective... even the colours look washed-out. How can this please an everyday, ordinary traveler? To say that a traveler is not overly fused about the end-result is crazy. Asking $800 for something that may please people who are not particular fused about anything... is kind of an insult.

I've posted more images in a PhotoBucket for you to dissect. These are at max resolution, exported as Full-Qual JPGs from LR5. Have at 'em.
Mike FL, you'll find a larger file of the Lupine image.

http://is.gd/Kppiam

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 22:52 UTC

For those of you who want to see more samples to judge the CAMERA by, here is a link to a Photobucket of 12 images at the max resolution available. A few are repeats from the set above, just for a SBS comparison. Some images were improved a bit in Adobe LR5, and some are left at defaults. Take into consideration the viewing magnification, and of course the camera settings data available for each. A few could have been improved with more time to try optimal settings tailored for the subject and conditions, but most were shot literally while on the go.

http://is.gd/Kppiam

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 22:48 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Mike FL: It seems two "Water Drops Leaf" photos have issues by looking the in focus "water drops" in #9 and #11 especially the one "drop" in the #9's center of leafs:

Q1: Caused by blown-out highlights? or

Q2: Caused by localized flare (due to wide open at the f/2 per IR)?

Any thought? Or better if David Julian can show us the same shots from his different camera(s) for comparing.

Mike, I think that photo# 9 has impressive IQ from a compact zoom camera. As for blown-out highlights, the Alaskan sky at that time was almost completely white. Coupled with a reflection in water droplets, this renders little tone in the whites when viewed with transmissive displays. With a little highlights reduction in LR5, the print has a bit more tone, though not what I'd call equivalent to a larger sensor with highlight-priority metering. I was on the go teaching a workshop, so I did no comparing between bodies as DPR may do.

#11: yes, shot wide open, this shows far less rendering IQ, and yet as a blog image it works for me. I tend to not be as critical because I am not judging my compact camera images against anything but their intention. No doubt the same image captured with my FF body or even my APSc camera would kill this.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: Nice set of images. I'd be pleased if I went on holiday with a camera that fits in my pocket and came back with these.

Might even buy one....

Hi Hugo808, thanks for your feedback. Though the GX1mkII is clearly not everyone's ideal, I found it fun to shoot with under most conditions. The twin ring feature still needs to speak to the software more fluidly, IMO

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 21:07 UTC
In reply to:

smithling: "I was kindly loaned a Canon Powershot G1 X Mark II to test and review from a traveler's perspective. "

Did Canon loan it to the reviewer? What's the relationship between Canon and the reviewer? With the image quality so poor, yet strangely gushing review, these questions need to be answered. This looks very bad for dpreview.

The camera was loaned by DPR, not Canon. I was offered to use it during the Alaska trip, learning it's capabilities along the way. My review may sound "strangely gushing' to you, but truly, I did appreciate what I could achieve much of the time when treating it as a casual camera, not as a critical-use camera being thoroughly reviewed.

I never intended to give any impression of greatness, just it's flexibility and performance in many cases.
I found several technical aspects less pleasing, but to bring up each issue was not the purpose of my article.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

David Julian: I'd like to respond to some points that have been expressed below, and will also reply to some of the individual posts where needed.

In general, text describes my appreciation for how this camera met my goals as a portable compact for use during adventure workshops and casual photography. I cannot claim to love ALL of the camera's renderings or mechanics, but it proved a very adequate travel camera and was enjoyable to use on the run.

Regarding my images' sharpness all around, it was never my goal is for deep sharp DOF in all situation, as I use my Full Frame and medium format film cameras for critical images.

When using a compact, I am more often interested in conveying the feel of an image than sharpness edge-to-edge. I used P and Auto for several trip images to get a feel for the camera's decision abilities.

I use Lightroom to optimize images for my clients and blogs, especially as I rarely print or create them with examination at full size as a goal.

~ DJ

Roy, Thank you for voicing some appreciation.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 05:40 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: David- I think the photos are excellent from a compositional and timing standpoint (the hardest part of being a photographer if you ask me).

Banding to me is destructive of images. Its worse than having a scratch on a negative. This is something that may show up in reviews (sometimes), and never on DXOMark, and when it does show up in reviews it's downplayed in my opinion.

Banding should be a MAJOR issue noted loud and clear in reviews. Its clear to me the sensor in the G1X MII has a big problem lifting shadows, and that's a deal breaker for me.

Thank you cgarrard. Glad someone out there sees something positive in these photos.
You are of course correct that lifting of shadows causes noise. IMHO, some shadow noise is acceptable for certain uses. For critical viewing at larger sizes and prints, none is acceptable. For blog images (as I've intended), I may accept some noise when it does not distract from the image's overall impact.
My intention was to discuss the camera's flexibility for the traveller, and I wish I'd stated clearly up front that my enjoyment of the camera was not always related to IQ under some conditions.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 05:26 UTC

I'd like to respond to some points that have been expressed below, and will also reply to some of the individual posts where needed.

In general, text describes my appreciation for how this camera met my goals as a portable compact for use during adventure workshops and casual photography. I cannot claim to love ALL of the camera's renderings or mechanics, but it proved a very adequate travel camera and was enjoyable to use on the run.

Regarding my images' sharpness all around, it was never my goal is for deep sharp DOF in all situation, as I use my Full Frame and medium format film cameras for critical images.

When using a compact, I am more often interested in conveying the feel of an image than sharpness edge-to-edge. I used P and Auto for several trip images to get a feel for the camera's decision abilities.

I use Lightroom to optimize images for my clients and blogs, especially as I rarely print or create them with examination at full size as a goal.

~ DJ

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 00:33 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JohnFredC: You must not have done any strenuous hiking (you know, with sweat) or you might have mentioned how it is impossible to keep the screen from getting sweaty and how inconvenient it is having to use two hands to control the camera when you only have one available, or how the new screen articulation is biased against portrait format compositions in any position other than straight ahead.

At least the G1x II has better image quality than the similar but even worse G7x.

Long time G-series fan here. Actively dislike the direction Canon is taking with these new designs.

Yes, I hiked, and I wear breathable layers for ventilation so as not to overheat and sweat up my gear. I did not use the G1X mmii in wet conditions, so I do not have any experience with the screen getting wet. I bag my gear until using it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

liviutza: Without trying to sound obnoxious, I believe we should be let know if the article benefits of any type of advertiser endorsement. To my eyes it's a bit too 'native-advertising' to be taken seriously into account; and I would be inclined to take it more into account if I am told it's not.

This reply is just to address the concerns that this is any kind of advertising. I have no current advertising nor brand affiliation with any camera manufacturer, nor take any direction from DPReview that would lean into an endorsement. This is just a user's impression of this camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps article (137 comments in total)

Wow, he's got a brilliant product proto, and I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2014 at 06:03 UTC as 20th comment
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (894 comments in total)
In reply to:

bzanchet: Wel, that is it. I love the DPreview web site, but I started having doubts after the images from my Sony RX100 were so much better than the samples posted here.
I recently bought the Canon G1XmkII even though I didnt like the images posted here, and again, my jpegs were wonderfully better than the ones taken by the reviewer.
I was following the shooting experience with the a6000 from the image-resource web site and was considering the camera. Today, I saw the images here and again, they were diferent from the other web site samples.
I dont know if it is the photographer, but here the pictures seems always out of focus, always mushy and grainy, except from the high end Canon and Nikon full frame cameras.
Also the other web site you can compare side by side pictures, multiple studio shots with a lot of diferente settings and cenarios, as with the DPreview you have only one studio scene.
Sorry guys, I am searching on others places from now for my upcoming cameras.

Really interested in your impressions of the Canon G1x mill.
Are you posting more about it here on DPR or elsewhere?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2014 at 01:12 UTC

Thanks to all who wrote me about my recent Hawaii workshop testing the TG-850.

My review of the camera is pending edits and publication.
Once published, I will not that here with a link.

Stay tuned, review should be released by April 15 at another location.

This is a great travel, adventure and family point'n'shoot with lots of unique features not seen in current peers.

~ DJ

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 19:56 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

eNdie: Why still no raw? :( That's about the only thing keeping me from buying any one of these little compact cameras. It's been three years now that I'm waiting for any company to introduce raw to their underwater compact and still nothing...so disappointing

These smaller sensors would likely make a RAW image needing lots of correction, sending many people complaining that JPGS are better. Most PAS users we've polled think RAW is for diets, not cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: I am curious what they have up their sleeve for the successor of the TG-2.

I asked OLY, no response yet. You can be sure I'll get one to test. The TG-2 needed a far better LCD. The TG-850 has it, so it should improve in all new OLY PAS cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 21:12 UTC
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »