noegd

noegd

Lives in Belgium Belgium
Joined on Aug 27, 2003

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Lars or Chris from interrealtime:

It would be really great to know how this differs from or compares to the alternatives.

For example cortex camera has been out for some time now and gets better reviews on the app store:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cortex-camera/id517488939?mt=8

Thanks!

Cortex Camera seems to capture 100 video frames, then align and combine them to provide higher resolution (from the FULL HD capture) and lower noise. It seems to be mostly useful for low-light, static subjects. It does well what it does but, for daylight photography, I would expect the regular app to deliver much more detailed images.
NightCap Pro seems to be much more versatile (and cheaper).

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 15:06 UTC

Fascinating content, but I agree that minimum 45$ for a print or download, restricted to personal use, is a bit steep. Especially coming from a public institution....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 11:53 UTC as 5th comment
On Lomography launches Russar+ for L39 and M mount cameras article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

bawbaw: These will be useless on digital RF with the deep rear element design, even the modern voigt wideangles are really bad on the M9/240. I was pretty sad when I saw the voigt 21mm on my M9, that having been my goto lens on film.

For about the same price there is better and more sensible L39/M mount wides ,used zeiss zm 21mm for one.

Like the Petzval before. It's cheaper to buy an original used and leave the disappointments to the cool kids that have made the lomography guys snake oil well grow deeper and deeper. Keeping in mind pre lomography these were about £30 on ebay if that.

The Voigt 21mm Skopar is actually quite good on the M9 (corners not as sharp as on M8 but still lightyears ahead of a non-ASPH Elmarit, not to mention Super-Angulons and the likes).

But I agree a used ZM 21 2.8 is probably the best "budget" option on a digital M.

For those looking for a classical look, I'd rather buy a cheap classical Russar than this copy.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

Joerg V: 98% Otus @ 25% price? Shut up and take my money!

Sigma should really be thankful to Zeiss: a couple of years ago, who would have qualified a Sigma 50 1.4 @ 1000$ a sensational deal? ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 09:40 UTC
In reply to:

JapanCanon: This costs JPY127,000 in Japan, or about 1,250 USD, excluding tax (now 8%). So street price of about USD$1350 in its home market, when theres no shipping and import duties, insurance, currency issues etc. How annoying pricing!

Hasn't this type of price dumping been always the norm in photo industry?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 09:36 UTC

A local shop sells the DP Merrill for 399€ (each, not the three of them) Maybe I should get one before the last "true Foveon" cameras are gone?

Had an original DP1 and loved its IQ (in good light).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2014 at 15:09 UTC as 158th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: It's an interesting project, an accomplishment if built, but you can buy old cameras for song today. I've seen working TLRs like the Yashica's going for $25 each so if you goal is photography with film, you can get there faster. What would be interesting would be a high resolution DIY real monochrome camera that doesn't cost $10000 like Leica's M. The first digital camera I owned was a low-rez CCD astrocamera I built with boards and plans designed by the former editor of "Astronomy" magazine.

I must admit having researched the possibility of a DIY monochrome digital camera.

There are plenty of monochrome industrial vision cameras/modules that would be a good starting point, but if you want anything better than a basic webcam resolution, you end up with something costing more than 1000€. And an industrial camera based on Leica 's MM Kodak KAI16000 CCD costs over 10,000$!

I keep looking though ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2014 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Shouldn't that be minimum shutter speed 1/16000, not maximum shutter speed which is 60s. Actually you have them interchanged in the specs.

Strictly speaking,
1/16000 should be minimum exposure time, and 60s maximum exposure time.
A speed is normally measured in m/s or km/h (and resolution in dpi), but we all understood what was meant ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 07:26 UTC

I think what Adobe needs to offer is an option for enthusiasts using Lightroom to get Photoshop CC at a decent cost. I am an amateur who has purchased every Lr version since v2, and would not mind subscribing to PS CC if it was cheap enough.

But, with the current offers, only existing CS users can get Lr + Ps CC for 10$/month, which I think is a great deal for pros. Existing Lightroom users need to pay the regular 20$/month to get Ps CC alone... Does not make sense to me.

And yes, a rent-to-buy approach would be ideal. I hope they do not remove the option to buy Lightroom in the future cause I don't want to locked into a rental system to keep access to my images catalog.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 08:50 UTC as 159th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

domina: That's a good thing for photography and videography, it means now everyone will be able to sell to them on the strength of their current images rather than be employed by them permanently because of personal connections or past reputation. However, it's sad for the photographers as employees. Perhaps the newspaper should offer them free support to set up their freelance businesses.

I think we have far enough of low quality stuff already. I guess the next step is they fire journalists because there is enough content on Twitter.

I thought the whole point of paying for a newspaper or a magazine was to have some quality content analyzed, written and documented in a professional way...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 09:54 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mister J: Snake-oil suit talk.

I guess we're all now looking for a Photoshop replacement.

Pixelmator is some of the way there, but still crashes and hangs, so development needed. Even so, they must be drooling at the market opportunity.

As for Lightroom, Aperture is the excellent alternative.

FCP is now a pretty good video editor.

InDesign? Quark is improving by the day, and is well priced.

I can't think of an Illustrator alternative, but maybe there's one I don't know about.

There's plenty of alternatives that may suit the hobbyist market, but probably not a professional looking for an integrated workflow. But let's face it, CS was never priced for the hobbyist market - and most of the individuals using it probably used it without a valid license. And Adobe seems to think that consumers will still find a way to do so with CC ;-)

OTOH I can't really understand the bashing about Lightroom. It is not subject to the new pricing and remains a very strong option. Aperture? I think it has its hare of issues (very long update cycles, lack of consistency of Apple in supporting its cloud-based services...).

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 09:55 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

EssexAsh: now capture 1 pro has added catalogues there is zero reason to stick with lightroom and CS5 is still more than capable if i feel the urge to do more than remove spots. Cheerio Adobe.

Capture One Pro is still more expensive than Lightroom, although the upgrades are about the same or cheaper.

I have C1 Pro but have not updated since v5 as I now almost exclusively use Lightroom. v7 has caught up but why should I switch?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 09:43 UTC

Good news and reasonable price... at last! I must admit I had never been a fan of those expensive plug-in suites that were not always doing a convincingly better job than the host software.

I only bought Color FX a while ago, but as a plug-in to Nikon Capture NX. Not sure if I qualify for the free offer!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2013 at 16:48 UTC as 92nd comment

Interesting. This looks like an easy and low cost way of improving dynamic range in small sensors.

Hopefully RAMBUS will be more successful than when they provided the proprietary and expensive RDRAM technology for the first Intel Pentium 4 motherboards.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 13:04 UTC as 88th comment
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: These look like very interesting new cameras. You can't argue with how small the NEX-3N is. That is really small for APS-C. It will sell very well.

It is much smaller than the F3 but hardly smaller or lighter than the 5N/5R.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2013 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

noegd: Is this the same sensor as in the 6 and 5N?

Can anyone confirm the 3N has an accessory port and takes the optional EVF? If the top cover hides the accessory port, where is the pup-up flash hiding?

It indeed looks like this 3N has no accessory port, according to other previews.

Still, an interesting kit with the 16-50, at less than half the price of the NEX-6 kit, if I believe the list price announces in Europe.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 13:58 UTC

Is this the same sensor as in the 6 and 5N?

Can anyone confirm the 3N has an accessory port and takes the optional EVF? If the top cover hides the accessory port, where is the pup-up flash hiding?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 09:20 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Mike99999: This is all I have to say about NEX: the size advantage is an illusion, you get big lenses with clumsy small bodies.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#325.90,393.321,ha,t

The 16-50 collapsible zoom makes this a very compact kit. Many entry-level users would not buy any other lens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Got a feeling Sigma's 50 f/1.4 is going to be better than the Zeiss.... hmm. Zeiss aren't that impressive lately.

The Sigma 35 1,4 is impressive and seems better than every other 35mm 1,4 out there, apart maybe from the current Leica M Summilux.

But the Sigma 50 1,4 is a slightly older design. It has its strengths and supporters, but it is not the technological breakthrough the 35mm 1,4 is. In particular, corners are nothing to write home about. See here: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/5

One thing the CZ and Sigma 50 1.4 share is a huge filter size for a 50mm prime (72 and 77mm respectively).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 09:00 UTC
On CP+ 2013 - lenses from Nikon and Sigma article (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: The UWA Nikkor looks quite nice, and is smaller than I expected (as small as lens with a 77mm filter can be). Since I have the 28 1.8G as my only wide, if the new 18-35 is a good performer, I'll consider it.

Regarding the "increasingly rare" inclusion of a lenshood with new lenses, every Sigma lens I've ever purchased has included a hood, and all of the newest generation Nikkors come complete with hoods. But there are some vendors (cough, Canolympus, cough) who feel hoods are optional, for whatever reason.

"Increasingly rare" may refer to the mirrorless market: Panasonic includes hoods for all of its lenses apart from the pancake ones, I think Sony only includes one with the higher-end lenses. Same for Nikon 1 lenses. Olympus does not include hood with any m43 lens afaik.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 09:00 UTC
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »