Realll

Realll

Lives in Bulgaria Bulgaria
Joined on May 8, 2011

Comments

Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardly: Much more interesting comparison of Canon G7X to Sony RX100 mk3 at the link below. The language is not English but the pictures speak for themselves. Enjoy!

http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=538&t=4088397

RX100 M3 is definitely better! Canon has heavy smearing details softwear (even at base ISO)and colors are too warm.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 16:04 UTC

Just saw the review of Photographyblog. Even my LX7 does better.

http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lx100_photos/

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 15:37 UTC as 74th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

aandeg: Now that is a disappointment.

HowaboutNOW (given this images)?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

I'm tired my friend, so I stop here. You are wellcome to proceed.
Congratulations about your brand new LX100. I will wait until Pana make it more competitive.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Sony-A5000-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7___942_929_901

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 17:16 UTC
In reply to:

Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

HowaboutRAW;

So I understand that you state Panny's m4/3 sensor is better than Sony's APS-C? That's funny.... And few posts above you concluded that I'm not so knowledgeable about Photography. :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 05:42 UTC
In reply to:

Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

HowaboutRAW
I have to agree again with your statement.
So be SURE that the sensor of Sony is better than Pany's. The good Leica lens could compensate differences BUT hardly make LX100 better camera. That returnes us to my initial post. :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

HowaboutRAW
Thank you for your opinion. Actually I share same thoughts about zooms and range so I think that it is slightly premature to make conclusions about my photography knowledge. :)
I don't want to put much theory here and I'm based on my own experience and it shows that the bigger is the crop the better is the print. :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

HowaboutRAW:

If you have LIMITED zoom range you wil definitely need cropping your images so in thess cases SIZE DOES MATTER...
And it is not the same if you have for example 3 MP large crops or 10 MP crops.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

Death89: In my opinion you will need advanced compacts until the price of the lenses with interchangeable cameras comes down to a similar (more sensible price). If I could buy an ILC with a directly equivalent features for only a reasonable amount (maybe 10-20% more given the advantages) more than the LX100 then I would.

As it stands I can get good enough performance from LX100 for £799, why would I pay 2-4 times that to get similar performance from an ILC version? I maybe an amateur enthusiast only, but I also have to be budget concious. 1 months wages or 4? Hmm...

Being honest I won't be able to afford either any time soon, but I may be able to get an LX7 which it seems will give me similar result to any ILC I may be able to afford with a kit lens.

I am not comparing any fruits. I am just coparing two cameras which compete to take place in my pocket. And if I have to choose one it will not be LX xxx. The camera which gives me better range and better quality is ILC 5000.
Actualy I'm cosidering myself as Pany- fen, so I am wainting for Pany camera that could replace a5000 from my pocket. Unfortunately this camera is not LX100.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

Realll: I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

OK, LEICA lens.... BUT you will not win extra light with such lens if the size of the sensor is smaller. With a5000 you will win SONY sensor and Sony's JPEGs which are beter than Pany's. Yes, 16-50 PZ is not the best but it is good enough in the center so you wil have images twice bigger which actually increase your zoom range twice. AND if you decrease images of a5000 disadvantages of 16-50 PZ are hardly ever seen. So finally you win not only 500$ :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 18:53 UTC
In reply to:

Death89: In my opinion you will need advanced compacts until the price of the lenses with interchangeable cameras comes down to a similar (more sensible price). If I could buy an ILC with a directly equivalent features for only a reasonable amount (maybe 10-20% more given the advantages) more than the LX100 then I would.

As it stands I can get good enough performance from LX100 for £799, why would I pay 2-4 times that to get similar performance from an ILC version? I maybe an amateur enthusiast only, but I also have to be budget concious. 1 months wages or 4? Hmm...

Being honest I won't be able to afford either any time soon, but I may be able to get an LX7 which it seems will give me similar result to any ILC I may be able to afford with a kit lens.

I have bpth- LX7 and Sony a5000 and I prfeer Sony more, even for the night shooting. Only flash -needed pictures of LX7 are better...
But it still is good camera though.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 16:44 UTC

I would ask you WHY to buy camera with limited zoom and so small image size (only 12 mp)? The size of the camera is almost same as my Sony a5000 with 16-50, but Sony has big APS-C sensor and 20 mp images... Yes, I know- the glass is important. But amouont of light is approximately equal. So with Sony and 16-50I have same size, same zoom, almost twice bigger images for beautiful crops and I have it on half-price of the LX100... So again WHY ?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 16:17 UTC as 189th comment | 22 replies
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)

Wow

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 17:07 UTC as 83rd comment
On Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS15/TZ25 Review article (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lupti: Please look for another writer than Jeff Keller. I miss the old DPreview reviews that were objective and prosy instead full of gushing praise. I have the TZ25 and it is by no means a good camera. Build quality is bad, and IQ is far from good. Look at the ISO100 samples, you will clearly see that these images look slightly smudgy due to massive NR. And you can´t change NR, sharpness, contrast or anything else in the camera, you only have the choice between standard and "vivid" look(beside Sepia and B/W). Also I think the price premium of the "bigger brother" is it worth as the TZ31 not only has longer zoom, better movie capabilites and GPS(IMHO useless) but also a slightly better IQ, however as the TZ31 also hasn´t the best IQ I would rather recommend looking for remaining stock of TZ10/ZS7 as this camera has MUCH better build quality, better IQ with adjustable settings and no rolling shutter in movie mode.

I don't know what kind of comparison did you make but the fact that TZ25 has better IQ even at base ISO is too obvious for my eyes... The watch, the coins and the texture details is definitely better than TZ30's. Even at ISO 100 and more visibly at all ISO above 400. Just take a brief look at the label "NI-MH" on the batteries in the left corner at ISO100-400. You sould be blind to not see the difference...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 15:06 UTC
On Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS15/TZ25 Review article (28 comments in total)

I would like to thank DP for this review. I have TZ25 and I totally agree that it is great little camera. My pixel peeping shows that it is definitely better than TZ31 and at least as good as SX230/260 which I own too. I'm happy with my new camera and I think it has very good low-light performance ( which is very important to me). Well done Panasonic, well done DP.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 14:53 UTC as 6th comment
On Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Review article (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

coastcontact: I just purchased this camera last week. So far I am delighted with its performance. I am somewhat surprised that Barney Britton gave the camera such a low rating. Other reviewers have all been giving this camera outstanding reviews. http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/Extended-Zoom.htm gave the camera a 10 out of 10. DPR’s owner, Amazon, has raised their price to the Panasonic suggested retail price. Probably proof that the camera has been very well received.

It would be very interesting which camera wins the GOLD AWARD...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26 UTC
On Updated: Panasonic DMC-FZ150 studio samples re-shot article (50 comments in total)

Exellent!Thank you Dpreview! Now we are waitng for update of the sample images gallery!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2011 at 03:57 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Menneisyys: Much better than the Sony DSC-HX100V but worse than the Canon SX230 HS at all ISO's.

I'm totally agree with ARTASHES. I've owned SX220 HS and I've sold it. It has terrible trend to use the highest appropriate ISO. It offen rise ISO in bright light conditions up to 400-800 while Panasonic use ISO 80... SX220/230 has focus issues. The Auto mode is absolutely useless. If you read Canon talk forum you will see that owners of the Canon SX220/230 more frequently are complainig than showing off their results.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:19 UTC

It is a shame! So expensive camera with such a disappointing lack of details! I was a Sony -fan for years but Sony's last P&S cameras are very disappointing. Now I am almost happy with Panasonic FZ38 but it hasn't great video quality. My ideal camera will have IQ of FZ35/38 and video of HX9V. Waiting for FZ150!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2011 at 05:33 UTC as 13th comment
On Panasonic launches FZ47/FZ48 24x superzooms article (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

keysmith: so the turn back on 12.1 ccd.. Sounds reasonable after the disaster of the 14.1 mos and 16.1 ccd sensors. FZ100 was an emparrasment for panasonic. I hope the new ccd will capture good pictures.
On the other hand i wonder why buy a SLR-like superzoom when now we have the compact superzooms (Sx230, tz20 etc) with same sensors and image quality. They have a little less tele (but still enough) and a little darker lens (f2.8 vs f3.5) but they are compacts.. This SLR-like bulky superzoom category of compacts will eventually disappear.

As for the (lack of) RAW i will agree that they don''t include it not to reveal how bad the pictures are before internal processing. lol

I own FZ38 AND Canon sx220sh - they are incomparable! Tke IQ of FZ38 is MUCH MUCH BETTER! Two different worlds! I've already returned SX220 because of it's unreliable performance. In too many situations pcitures are out of focus and in dim light it is very slow and inacurate. You always have to change settings and cannot rely on auto mods. Some times pictures are good but in many situations -blured and not sharp. SX220/230 has general trend to use high ISO settings! Even in day light it frequently uses ISO 300-400 and hihger! Canon has to improve performance of this very promising camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2011 at 13:04 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »