Lupti

Lupti

Lives in Neutral Zone Neutral Zone
Joined on Oct 9, 2006
About me:

Errm...it´s secret LOL

Comments

Total: 87, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

zoranT: why isn t global shutter implemented in all cameras? too expensive tech? what s the disadvantage?

Well, if they really wanted they could have developed it so far that it should be usable for consumer cameras, but marketing deciced that other "improvements" like 3D or smile detection were more important.
The technology of global shutter is already know since 2003 IIRC.
Now they introduce it in their top pro cameras, if marketing shows mercy we will see it maybe in the new high-end consumer cameras next spring...maybe not.
A lot of people don´t even know what global shutter and rolling shutter mean. They don´t know why their mobile phone footage comes out wobbly, they think it´s due to the lack of image stabilisation but it´s the global shutter which is still pretty visible in most mobile phone videos.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2012 at 20:40 UTC

I rather had wished the possibility to adjust mic sensitivity on the NEX-7. But ok Sony, I understand you don´t want to cannibalise the NEX-7 the sales of your VG camcorders, eh?

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 14:31 UTC as 4th comment
On article Review: Nokia 808 PureView (349 comments in total)

Ok I now have tested it and have to say this phone is just a overhyped gadget. The camera is ok for P&S standards but nothing in the area of being "impressive, stunning" whatever. 34MP 16:9 mode gives just rather soft images and you see even very little shake. The lack of image stabilisation makes it just not suitable for serious photography. And even at ISO64 you see little grain at 34MP. The pureview mode gives ok results but nothing a good P&S can do. And I liked the ISO200 and above results of my Canon S95 better.
Video is just unusable, you hear every little sound of your fingers touching the phone and the lack of image stabilisation is just frustrating(and the one offered is a joke because it just makes the image jumping but not stable).
Beside all this it is just a mere phone with nothing special to offer. And IMHO it is just a rather clunky phone, so is the handling.
Don´t believe the hype, I don´t recommend it.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 21:37 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
On article Google+ houses healthy community for photographers (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

Noogy: Strange article. Who is on Google+ among enthusiasts and pros here in DPR? None of my friends who are into photography are on Google+ and since Facebook upgraded its photo capabilities that now allows high-def viewing/sharing of images, FB definitely beats Google+ hands down. How much did Google pay for this article?

Agree. I don´t see a reason for using Google+. Google is trying to force people to use it, not only people with "normal" Google account but also Youtube users.
They want to compete with Facebook, but I really doubt the success.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2012 at 14:34 UTC
On article Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system (699 comments in total)

I don´t like it and don´t see any sense in it. Why does every bigger site think that they need a new layout just because it´s "new"? At first Youtube, now Dpreview. What a waste of time they better have spent for real improvements or reviews...

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2012 at 16:41 UTC as 176th comment
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 Camera (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

jcmarfilph: Why do you have all the time to do review for a crippled camera wannabee like iPhone and then not do a review for superzoom cams that are already out for almost a year now?

That´s because DPreview has lost their nimbus in being the no.1 camera review site some time ago. If you want to read reviews of real cameras without every 2nd article being about a smartphone or other not really photography related devices you have to look elsewhere. There were times when I could check DPreview about most cameras I considered buying but today they review only a minor fraction of them. That´s sad. So I rather look elsewhere. Competition isn´t sleeping, there are a lot of photography review sites that stick to real cameras, doing a lot of reviews that are better than DPreviews ones. One of them is run by only one man who has done more reviews than big DPreview with their team of 14 people. Strange, not?

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 16:44 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 Camera (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter62: German STIFTUNG WARENTEST (leading independent product test organisation) rated the iPhone 5's _video_ capabilities clearly ABOVE the Nokia 808.

Who cares? Everyone who ever has read one of the camera test from this magazine knows that they have as much clue about cameras as a pig about bicycling.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

focalphotography: The main reason any site including most of the UK news media websites do stories about the iPhone is for Google ranking and search engine optimization.

Daily mail is a good example of this doing maybe 2-3 stories about iPhone every week !!

epo001 - it has nothing to do with hate. I don´t care about the Iphone or any other phone regardless which OS is running or how many MP it has. You said it yourself - it´s a phone. Not a camera. But this is a site about digital photography and reviewing dedicated cameras. Not phones capable of taking photos. If one wants infos about a phone(be it popular or not), he should visit a phone site. Period.
Only just because it´s "popular" a dedicated photography shouldn´t give phones with cameras too much room. Otherwise it´s quantity rather than quality that counts - and that would be a shame.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

focalphotography: The main reason any site including most of the UK news media websites do stories about the iPhone is for Google ranking and search engine optimization.

Daily mail is a good example of this doing maybe 2-3 stories about iPhone every week !!

Right, this seems to be the only reason why DPreview jumped on the bandwagon and reports every little news about the Iphone like most gadget and tech sites. It just looks like "me too". I rather read really photography related news than having some news report every day about some device that can take photos but isn´t a camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: *Face Palm*

Its just a phone....Just like the 15 other phones that have been released this year. There are better phones with better cameras.

Once one has one of the exmor RS sensors wake me up.

Yes, it is a phone. And that is the problem. It´s not a camera. So if I want to take photos with it I have to buy a device which main purpose isn´t taking photos. Therefore I buy other features like iOs, the possibility to play music, install "apps" and and putting a nano-SIM in it. The problems are: I don´t need the first and don´t have a nano-SIM. So I spent money for a device that has features I don´t need and for that I have to ask my provider for a new SIM. And all this effort for taking photos with it. Ummm...

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

Oery: I use camera to take picture
I use notebook/PC to do computing work
I use audio-player to listen music
and
I use phone to..... take a phone call
:)

Me too! So it really is annoying that there are so much articles about camera phones on a site about cameras. Really, they could release Iphone 6 or Nokia smartphone with 80MP, I´m not interested. Phones are phones and not cameras. There are photo forums that don´t allow any discussion about cameraphones because they aren´t dedicated photo devices. Wish DPreview would handle it this way, too.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 23:12 UTC

The only thing that interests me about the Iphone 5: Will it blend? LOL

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 17:16 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply

Great! This is what all people with too much money have waited for: A Sony NEX-7 with Hasselblad label and - erm - stylish design. LOL
And I thought the Porsche Blackberry for 1500 € I saw was overpriced designer crap...

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 18:10 UTC as 96th comment | 1 reply

Hm...2013-2014? What about now? Because I want to take photographs now, but for that I need existing equipment, not stuff that could be released in 1-2 years.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 14:36 UTC as 2nd comment
On article iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 4S: Image comparison (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prestidigitator: The camera on this crApple iFruitcake is not worth an article here in DPR. Write an article when the hypePhone finally manages to reach the level of the Nokia N82, Samsung Innov8 or Nokia N8. We can of course forget about it even reaching the level of the mighty Nokia PureView 808 given a decade. Why the iSheep would even line up in front of a store to get this model is really one of the greatest mysteries in the world. Are they too intellectually-challenged to order it online?

Becaue it´s Apple. Apple is so coooool and trendy, and innovative, so Apple evangelists must buy it, otherwise they aren´t trendy and cool anymore and would possibly be ignored by other Apple evangelists. Oh my.

Let´s wait how long it will take until Dpreview is reviewing tablets capable of taking photographs. Sorry, but it seems to me that they are trying to fill up every day with some new articles, no matter which quality. There is another site(I don´t mention the name here, but it´s only run by one man) which still concentrates on real photography, camera reviews and doing a lot more of them rather than reporting something about smartphones. Like old DPreview did...

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 21:09 UTC
On article iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 4S: Image comparison (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prestidigitator: The camera on this crApple iFruitcake is not worth an article here in DPR. Write an article when the hypePhone finally manages to reach the level of the Nokia N82, Samsung Innov8 or Nokia N8. We can of course forget about it even reaching the level of the mighty Nokia PureView 808 given a decade. Why the iSheep would even line up in front of a store to get this model is really one of the greatest mysteries in the world. Are they too intellectually-challenged to order it online?

Why should popularity count? Millions of flies eat what? Same thing.
I don´t see that a device being capable of taking pics should have too much room here only because it´s "popular".
I´m solely interested in "standalone" cameras, not smartphones with cameras. If I would, I would go to a dedicated smartphone website, not to DPreview.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

Craignos: no, you all are boring, below here.
Why? Because your mind is stuck to DSLR. Yes, a DSLR can shoot better photos than an iPhone, but tomorrow, these DSLRs might not!
I am glad that DPreview investigates the technology behind an iPhone camera, because like others in the industry, Apple has proven that they can innovate and drive the technology past 2.5lbs in your bag!
So stop being grumpy, open your eyes and look at what your kids have shot with their phones, it's not ready for fine art, but it's getting there, and pouting it is denying where the world is going to.
Good job DPreview!

"no, you all are boring, below here."

Well, then I prefer to be boring rather than praising every new gadget as "innovation"...even if the value of use is questionable.

"...a DSLR can shoot better photos than an iPhone, but tomorrow, these DSLRs might not!"

What tomorrow are you talking about? Year 2150? It is just a question of physical limitations that a DSLR is always better than a smartphone. Big sensor and lens vs. small sensor and flat lens.

"I am glad that DPreview investigates the technology behind an iPhone camera, because like others in the industry, Apple has proven that they can innovate and drive the technology past 2.5lbs in your bag!"

Well, surprise: My Canon S95 and a cellphone aren´t 2,5lbs. So for what do I need an Apple device? To feel cool? Nope.

And for the "iPhone art": I don´t consider snapshots of grinning party people for Facebook as real photography. And I´m sure I´m not the only one.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

Lupti: Hmm...Am I the only one who is concerned about the fact that this site gives smartphones with cameras too much room? At first the Nokia Lumia 808, ok, maybe it was a bit understandable because it has 41MP sensor, but now Iphone 5? The site name is "digital photographry review", not "smartphone review". And please don´t tell me what a nice "always-have-with-me"-camera a smartphone is, I don´t have a smartphone and don´t want one for a lot of reasons, ok? -.-

LOL, you´re wrong. I´m not a "grumpy old man", I´m in an age group they permanently try to attract for their technical gadgets, but without success. My cellphone was 20 €, I just use it for what is was originally designed for, and if I lose it or accidently drop it on the ground, I don´t have lost or smashed 700 € or what these devices cost...and despite all the praise their camera performance is still ways behind this of P&S.
There are still people that consider photography as serious activity, not just snapping something with a smartphone.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

Lupti: Hmm...Am I the only one who is concerned about the fact that this site gives smartphones with cameras too much room? At first the Nokia Lumia 808, ok, maybe it was a bit understandable because it has 41MP sensor, but now Iphone 5? The site name is "digital photographry review", not "smartphone review". And please don´t tell me what a nice "always-have-with-me"-camera a smartphone is, I don´t have a smartphone and don´t want one for a lot of reasons, ok? -.-

brdeveloper, yes, maybe they changed street photography(which I´m not into), but my main problem with N8 and 808 is, that if I want the camera, I have to buy the phone which I don´t want. Same thing with the iPhone, why should I care about it if I don´t want the phone part of this device?
If I want a device for always having with me and capable of taking usable photos I could also take a slim P & S with me. E.G. I have a Sony TX9 which takes good pics and movies, has IS, is small also thanks to it´s internal lens and could easily be mistaken with a smartphone. I think I´m not the only one who doesn´t need a smartphone despite all the fuzz about having a jack of all trades device with me for checking Facebook(don´t have it), browsing the net(too expensive and awkward), playing games(for that I have a real computer) and - of course - taking photos and videos.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:37 UTC
Total: 87, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »