micahmedia

micahmedia

Lives in United States Portland, United States
Works as a Photographic industry
Has a website at micahmedia.com
Joined on Jan 25, 2010

Comments

Total: 651, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS M Preview preview (557 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Saxby: If this camera had the option of an external viewfinder, not necessarily an EVF, just a simple optical one even, then I might consider getting this. it might only be a glorified point and shoot but it does offer an alternative to an Ixus or Powershot. If it was between this or the G1X I would probably still get the G1X, but if it was between this and the G12, then it would be this... Thats just my opinion anyway..

See: http://www.ebay.com/itm/170881382441

I still would prefer a real EVF. You can't judge focus on these lenses, since they're fly by wire.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 20:25 UTC
On Canon EOS M Preview preview (557 comments in total)

Great, one more reason for idiots to hold up a bright screen and ruin my view at a concert. Thanks Canon!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 20:17 UTC as 173rd comment | 1 reply
On Canon EOS M Preview preview (557 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: This camera seems to be very similar to the much cheaper Panasonic G1X.... except the G1X gives you built in pop up flash, a built in EVF, digital zoom, and lenses with OIS built into them.

I see Amazon has the G1X down to $559 with the standard (non folding) kit lens.

Canon needs to offer a better value than this one.

sukabad, you must be shooting jpegs. The GX1 is not a replacement for my D700 or D7000, but it is certainly a cut above any point and shoot I've used.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 20:15 UTC
On Canon EOS M Preview preview (557 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: I don't get people saying that the 18-55 is "too big"

It's only 61x61mm

The Olympus 14-42 II (which retracts) is only 11mm shorter (57x50mm)
The Panasonic 14-42 is 61x64mm
The Sony NEX 18-55 is 62x60mm.

So really they are all the same basic size give or take a half inch.

Samsung is the true marvel here at 64x39mm on their 20-50, but they made a retracting zoom design with noticeably less wide angle.

"But Canon has a larger and better sensor!"

Pull up the GX1 and compare it across the range in RAW format to the new Rebel T4i. To my eye, there isn't a world of difference. The Canon sensor is certainly larger, but I wouldn't run out and say "better". http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-650d-rebel-t4i/9

And this new Canon cam lacks an EVF option and mature lens selection (adapted doesn't count in my book, for a camera that is supposed to be compact).

(and yes, the T4i has the same sensor)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 20:13 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix S9300 Review article (56 comments in total)

While Nikon's DSLRs have a super slick and efficient interface, their point and shoot models are bottom of the barrel in terms of UI and general speed.

Reviews, including at DPR, all seem to gloss over what I see as a major difference. Nikon's P&S cams are just klunky.

I'll take a look at one of these out of curiousity, but I don't expect this trend to change.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2012 at 00:21 UTC as 19th comment
On Portraiture exhibit that omits the subject article (46 comments in total)

I think it's an interesting concept, but I think the visual language I'm seeing here speaks too intimately to either the subject or obsessed fans who will know the details of the subjects' lives.

I agree with the comment below as well--his techniques have already been explored with much more skill by many others.

The one thing this guy has going for him is the cajones it took to approach and successfully engage the subjects. Credit due there.

But that's about it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 22:50 UTC as 21st comment
On Researchers follow the noise to find composite images article (38 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan4321: If there are algorithms to detect it, then the same algorithms can be used to hide it, what's the point really?

Much like the TSA deters only the stupid terrorists, this will deter those with weak photoshop mojo. I can't think of anything bad about deterring a bunch of people who are bad a photo manipulation from even trying.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 17:39 UTC
On Behind the photo: Apple's Retina MacBook Pro zebras... article (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: A great image that was captured on film! (Using an EOS1N film SLR)

At least it stops the silly debate on what sensor was used... so now just argue on F5 vs 1V...

.

Perhaps 1Vhs?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 16:11 UTC

Some of the pictures are quite good and professional, and truly capture something. Others in this set are píss poor--the one of Anna Tunicliffe stands out as particularly bad.

They bad ones don't "challenge perceptions" --they're just so technically bad that they are ineffective at conveying much of anything.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 01:58 UTC as 168th comment

Step two towards spherical optics! Start patenting your spherical lens designs today!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2012 at 18:26 UTC as 73rd comment
In reply to:

bborowski000: why ?????????????? it's a panasonic lens..................olympus didn't design it so why should they fix anything

I'm not sure how people get from A to B sometimes. Because you haven't seen this on a completely different camera, you know what's wrong with this one? You've actually tried every m4/3 camera? Pics or it didn't happen!

A more important factor than shielding is the higher sampling rate of the AF in this camera vs. whatever older, slower version you are comparing to. Higher AF sampling rates = potential for running the motors more often and at higher speeds. Shielding only does so much when things are in such close proximity. There is probably a software fix and we'll see it as soon as Oly has it ready.

As to the original comment--Oly and Panny have agreed to jointly support this lens standard, which includes mount AND electronic tech. They both work to make everything compatible. Even if you don't think they should be responsible, they are contractually. That's why they "should fix anything".

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2012 at 01:33 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJMcKee51: I just purchased a D3200 to replace my old D40, thinking I was getting a much better camera, but it seems like there is almost no difference between them, especially as far as picture quality goes. 24mp file sizes are impressive, but useless to most of us casual users, causing very slow downloads. On my 24 inch iMac, I can see no difference in the photos from the two cameras. The "Live View" function is clunky and annoying. There was no lens hood included with the D3200, while there was a hood with the D40. I haven't tried out the video function, yet. At this point, I feel like I should have bought a different Nikon body, but I don't know what one. For beginners, the D3200 still may be a very good camera. It is light weight and would be nice for carrying while you are hiking or biking. I have had no problems with it so far.

Not saying there's not a difference, but do you really need it? I'm curious to see if you could get better prints working from your monitor than I could working from one that you'd consider inferior. I mean working from the same images of course.

And that's not a personal challenge--I'm just curious to see how much of a difference the hardware makes in this case.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 8, 2012 at 22:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images article (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Cool, but I think I'll wait next year when they put a 30MP sensor. 20MP is not sharp enough. ;-)
*sarcasm* lol

Methinks there's too little sharpness behind the viewfinder...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2012 at 00:59 UTC
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (213 comments in total)
In reply to:

dark goob: Can we please stop referring to 135-format as "full-frame"? It's factually wrong because 135-format cameras are not always full-frame. It's actually a fact that the Nikon FX-format sensors are the only known cameras to support a crop-sensor mode. Not to mention the fact that Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds are both full-frame formats -- despite having a smaller sensor.

Quit using language wrongly!!!!

In response to the OP:

NO.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 22:04 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJMcKee51: I just purchased a D3200 to replace my old D40, thinking I was getting a much better camera, but it seems like there is almost no difference between them, especially as far as picture quality goes. 24mp file sizes are impressive, but useless to most of us casual users, causing very slow downloads. On my 24 inch iMac, I can see no difference in the photos from the two cameras. The "Live View" function is clunky and annoying. There was no lens hood included with the D3200, while there was a hood with the D40. I haven't tried out the video function, yet. At this point, I feel like I should have bought a different Nikon body, but I don't know what one. For beginners, the D3200 still may be a very good camera. It is light weight and would be nice for carrying while you are hiking or biking. I have had no problems with it so far.

I'm still stunned at the quality of base ISO raws from my D70, when I encounter them in my archives. However, there's no comparison at higher ISOs.

iMac monitors are quite nice--ignore the naysayers there (although calibration is useful!). A "real graphical monitor"?! Yeah, those poor Mac monitors only display text, huh?

I wouldn't sweat a lens hood. They really don't do much of anything except get in the way or help you dodge rain/things thrown at your camera. They do very little to combat flare. Lens design has a lot more to do with flare than a hood.

Speaking of lenses, there's the real issue: kit lens? THAT can limit your quality for hand held or non-daylight shots. Even the 16-85 is an upgrade from the kit lens. However, if you really want to see that sensor shine (pun intended) look into some faster primes. Unfortunately, many of the older ones won't AF on either camera, but the ones that do are stunning. The 35/1.8 is a bargain.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

Imagefoundry: getting some really nasty color tearing with ACR 7.1 and Fuji X-Pro1. In some cases (not too often, thankfully) it makes images borderline unusable - example crop below:
http://db.tt/k0qScmMa

Usee seems rather fanatical about Silkypix and their results from the eX-Pro-1.

In all the examples they give, I still see sharpness/contrast/tonality issues in the red channel.

I don't doubt that software can be developed to clean things up a bit, but I suspect that we're just seeing the results of real physical properties of the xtrans pattern--it is just lower resolution in the blue and red channels than a Bayer pattern.

You see it worse with higher ISOs because all noise reduction lowers resolution. And red is always the noisiest channel.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 21:51 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaggi: Which is better D5100 or D3200 or Canon600D (All are around same price)

I want to buy a DSLR to take my Kid Photos mostly in Low light preferred.

Please suggest me.

...Pentax all offer mature DSLR systems. This is worth considering, since second hand glass is cheap and good for all four.

For low light, look into any of the last four above, and in addition to the kit lens look into a 35mm/f2 or 50mm/1.8. That will give you good results in low light.

Cheers.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2012 at 06:51 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaggi: Which is better D5100 or D3200 or Canon600D (All are around same price)

I want to buy a DSLR to take my Kid Photos mostly in Low light preferred.

Please suggest me.

FTW hasn't a clue what they're talking about. There is no loss of quality inherent in the DSLR design, only in the Sony SLT design. The current DSLR tech allows for generally faster and more accurate autofocus in low light than the mirrorless bunch.

And the general CW about "less pixels = better high ISO" is not 100% true. With a given generation of cameras, this tends to be true. However, the 24mp Sony senor in the d3200 and the Sony cams is superior to the senor in the D70, which only had a quarter of the pixels. More important than the pixel count is the age of the technology involved. Right now, the 16mp sensor gives slightly less noise in low light.

Keep in mind that you may be buying into a whole "system" and consider whether you will find the lenses you want. The Sony mirrorless system is the most limited today. Pana/Oly have the most comprehensive for mirrorless. Canon and Nikon have the most comprehensive for DSLRs.

However, Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta, and...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2012 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

Imagefoundry: getting some really nasty color tearing with ACR 7.1 and Fuji X-Pro1. In some cases (not too often, thankfully) it makes images borderline unusable - example crop below:
http://db.tt/k0qScmMa

Yeah, something awful odd about the way it's rendering color detail. Check the red/blue and red/green radial patterns. But it's not ACR, the OOC jpegs look similar.

Methinks the math just isn't there yet for this CFA pattern. Kinda a big oversight for a shipping product.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/XPRO1hVFAI00200.RAF.HTM

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2012 at 17:44 UTC
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (213 comments in total)
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: Sorry, but for me the colour of the thing is a serious point. I haven't bought any of the Oly lenses that are mentioned in this preview, because of the colour of the things. All my camera bodies are black (except a white G3 that I bought by mistake) and to me, a silver lens on a black body is not discrete enough.

Looks like Oly have lost me as a potential customer!

Not just samples online (and even if they were, it's not like a camera or bad technique adds CA), I've seen files from the 45/1.8 from an associate who returned it after being disappointed by the image quality. It's got pretty bad CA. And LoCA. No bueno.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2012 at 00:55 UTC
Total: 651, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »