RStyga

RStyga

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 8, 2010

Comments

Total: 589, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: It's a very nice camera and all but the RAW output is still fuzzy with pixel-level artifacts due to the X-Trans structure. Fujifilm needs to resolve the RAW conversion otherwise X-Trans will become synonymous to low high-ISO noise at the expense of "double"-AA-filter style IQ. At a time where manufacturers remove the AA filter to achieve a crisper image, Fujifilm advertises a sensor with no need for an AA filter but -in essence- with an even more blurry IQ than traditional Bayer sensor that have an AA filter. No moire is great but I'm not sure why one would prefer an X-Trans camera since applying PP on a Bayer sensor can remove moire completely and obtain the same "blurry" image that an X-Trans camera produces.

Is there is a Fujifilm output converted sample using Rawtherapee to compare?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 18:27 UTC

Yes, Ricoh GR needs to be added!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 04:11 UTC as 3rd comment
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (499 comments in total)

It's a very nice camera and all but the RAW output is still fuzzy with pixel-level artifacts due to the X-Trans structure. Fujifilm needs to resolve the RAW conversion otherwise X-Trans will become synonymous to low high-ISO noise at the expense of "double"-AA-filter style IQ. At a time where manufacturers remove the AA filter to achieve a crisper image, Fujifilm advertises a sensor with no need for an AA filter but -in essence- with an even more blurry IQ than traditional Bayer sensor that have an AA filter. No moire is great but I'm not sure why one would prefer an X-Trans camera since applying PP on a Bayer sensor can remove moire completely and obtain the same "blurry" image that an X-Trans camera produces.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 03:05 UTC as 44th comment | 6 replies

The response on why Pentax is not entering the DSLM market is vague at best and insulting to customers at worst. New mount is required so old lenses will be useless, he said more or less ... Really? I have one word for Pentax: "Adapters". And, "Sensor heat" ... right... in 2015? How on earth, then, Fujifilm, Sony, and the other manufacturers made it? Magic spells?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 12:29 UTC as 88th comment | 3 replies

These lenses are too big for a mirrorless system. They should be smaller than their DSLR counterparts not same-size or larger.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 03:10 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

RStyga: The Leica T design does not help either.

"DESIGN" I said...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 01:26 UTC

The Leica T design does not help either.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 22:13 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Timlo: Not only is a rangefinder camera expensive to buy but to own too. What I've heard owners send in their cameras for inspection and service regularly, usually for checking the alignment of the rangefinder. In this regard this Konost with its digital ghost patch is really ground breaking in my opinion, no more maintenence!

Very good point!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 03:01 UTC

The lack of controls to this extant is a serious drawback even for RF cameras. I also doubt the ergonomics of the grip as it looks slippery, we'll see. Last, I have serious reservations in regard to pricing: I feel from the existing marketing promotion that it will be quite expensive and only nominally cheaper than a comparable Leica M. If Ricoh release a successor to GXR+A12M it will be groundbreaking news. GXR was light years ahead in almost all respects compared to any M-mount digital camera.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 01:28 UTC as 96th comment
In reply to:

Randy Benter: The T6s should get a firmware upgrade to add AF micro adjust. I would never use a DSLR without this capability. It would be nice to have a smaller DSLR like this as an option, but apparently Canikon believe that enthusiasts and pros would never want a smaller/lighter camera. The competition is offering some nice options (e.g. E-M1 and X-T1), but Canon still doesn't get it.

AF micro adjustment should be a standard feature in all PDAF DSLR cameras, even the entry-level ones. With the advent of high-precision CDAF DSLM cameras, this is the minimum manufacturers can do to compete. Pentax was wise enough to incorporate it even in its lowly K-r. Snapshooters can let it be in default setting, but those who can see why FF or BF is unacceptable in a modern camera, should be able to use it. Canon wake up!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 08:17 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Fujifilm shows prototype roadmap lenses article (75 comments in total)

Well done Fujifilm. 'Glad to see continuous support of fixed-focal lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 06:42 UTC as 4th comment

It's very early to comment on this camera. There's hardly anything there, yet. The mockup looks very tall, necessarily tall for a FF camera and detracts from the aesthetic harmony of the overall design. Pentax can make smaller DSLRs, they have proven it time and time again. We'll wait (I'm afraid rather a long time) and see...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 22:06 UTC as 63rd comment
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

I wouldn't say Foveon is a colour-champion above base
ISO, however.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 22:02 UTC
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

I'm old enough to have lived the film-only photography days in the 80s and 90s so quit your 'younger gen" rhetoric... it's irrelevant. I also used to own a DP2 but sold it because of its atrocious responsiveness. DPM improved but not enough. RAW recording speed, I implied, before, is another issue. Sigma need to fix what can be fixed (beyond the sensor limitations, that is). You can certainly take impressively high IQ photos but Sigma cameras are tripod-mostly, battery-intensive, take-your-time-only, loose-most-shots, freakishly-clumsy, but-fugly-as-of-Quattro cameras. Do you think that an RX1 or an A7 or 6D won't give you a superb image in terms of IQ?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 04:40 UTC
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

Save me the BS... Since when AF speed is one of the "endless features" in an AF camera? Battery power, RAW recording, ....

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 02:16 UTC
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

@christom people like me.. you don't know me... and probably younger than me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 13:46 UTC
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

It has to, it's the only reason people buy them. In most other respects they are appalling.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 03:11 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: The design is not as bad as K-S1's but it is, still, a "K-S design"... ugly (especially top view and button design at the back).

No account for taste...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 22:54 UTC
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)

I hope that Sigma drops this absurd stickosaurs inflamed-arthritis design and returns to more ergonomic cameras. The high ISO improvement is notable but at the expense of its former brilliant base ISO IQ.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 12:39 UTC as 21st comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

RStyga: Hopefully the WR design will prevent the duo-cam design from sucking dust. The lens is, however, very dark... F4-5.6... a F2.8-4 would be much better even if it would make the lens' diameter larger.

Well, lenses that maximize compactness are not advertised for performance.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 12:34 UTC
Total: 589, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »