ForeignerOnEarth

ForeignerOnEarth

Joined on Oct 4, 2012

Comments

Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-T1 images added to studio test scene article (65 comments in total)

Compare RAW X-T1, 70D, D7100 and OMD E-M1, ISO 200, 1600, 6400.
Fuji is total syntethic picture, in RAW too. No noise in ISO 200, 1600, 6400, the same images in ISO 200, 1600, 6400, Nikon, Canon, Olympus changes ISO 200 -> 6400, Fuji no change :-D New definition of RAW. There is no signal from sensor, but mathematic fiction only. In some parts of the picture the amazing fiction. The colors are far from accurate, the blue is terrible. The skin is O.K.
We are seeing the revolution, new postprocessing into RAW. Synthetic picture. Maybe in 3-5 years will Fui do the amazing job. Not now.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 23:34 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Nikon owners don't need to wait. They already have the superb Nikkor 18-300mm superzoom.

2mm on the wide end is much, much importaint and usable than 50mm on the long end.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 16:20 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

Koemans: Just compared the Raws of the camera's..

The 6D looks way too crystal clear compared to the DF and 610. Infact, the DF actually appears slightly out of focus or more 'fuzzy' if you take a closer look. It's a shame DPreview.. i mean, if you want us to look at lab results with our own eyes and judge for ourselves, atleast be sure the focus is correct, especially with camera's in this price range.

I have very different eyes, I do not see no advantage in 6D images. They are not much worse, but not better.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2013 at 09:44 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

kecajkerugo: One more time, just for fun: add the Fuji X-E2 to the comparison: ISO 6400, first in JPEG, then in RAW.....do you see how much chroma noise is shown by the FF cameras when compared to the X sensor?
Yes, yes there are some other advantages of having the FF but for those who need QUALITY AND PORTABILITY the latest mirrorless (and especially the Fuji but also the Oly) are absolutely enough!

... and do you see the amount of lost details and smooth texture in Fuji RAW by ISO 6400?
The X sensor is innocent, of course, the RAW interpretation and RAW coding is somewhat aggresive.
We can make FF RAW -> Fuji image, but no the opposite way. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2013 at 09:42 UTC
In reply to:

ForeignerOnEarth: Dear Richard Butler. Can you write the experiences with focusing on Nikon D7100? I want to buy Sigma 18-35/1.8 and to sell my Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55/2.8G after many, many years. I have D7100 and D300 and I am affraid Sigma 18-35 is not exact and faithful for focusing. I read your experiences with Sigma 18-35/1.8 on Canon. Are your experiences on Nikon D7100 better? Is it the good idea to buy Sigma USB dock for 18-35/1.8 or D7100 AF Fine Tuning is satisfactory? I want to shot the people indoor in the distance of some meters with SB-800 flash and without it. I love Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55/2.8G focusing, but Sigma is faster and better in the image quality.
I have sold Sigma 10-20 and buy Nikkor 10-24 three years ago for better focusing and better image quality, is it now the time to sell Nikkor (17-55) and buy Sigma (18-35) ????

Thank youy very, very much!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 18:44 UTC

Dear Richard Butler. Can you write the experiences with focusing on Nikon D7100? I want to buy Sigma 18-35/1.8 and to sell my Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55/2.8G after many, many years. I have D7100 and D300 and I am affraid Sigma 18-35 is not exact and faithful for focusing. I read your experiences with Sigma 18-35/1.8 on Canon. Are your experiences on Nikon D7100 better? Is it the good idea to buy Sigma USB dock for 18-35/1.8 or D7100 AF Fine Tuning is satisfactory? I want to shot the people indoor in the distance of some meters with SB-800 flash and without it. I love Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55/2.8G focusing, but Sigma is faster and better in the image quality.
I have sold Sigma 10-20 and buy Nikkor 10-24 three years ago for better focusing and better image quality, is it now the time to sell Nikkor (17-55) and buy Sigma (18-35) ????

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2013 at 09:08 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies

The MTF are amazing:
http://sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_18_35_18/data.html

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 05:23 UTC as 185th comment
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (492 comments in total)

Please add the comparement of the maximum sharpness & detail versus normal, standard:

Nikon D7100 + Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G + Nik Sharpener Pro 3 (selective adjustment of structure/local contrast/focusing)
VERSUS
D7100 + 85/1.8 + RAW ->USM
D7100 + 18-105 (at 85mm) + RAW ->USM
D7100 + 18-105 (at 85mm) + JPEG

The advance of combination
Nikon D7100 + Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G + Nik Sharpener Pro 3 (selective adjustment of structure/local contrast/focusing)

IS AMAZING!!!!!!!
(I have them and I do not believe...)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 10:54 UTC as 33rd comment
On Nikon D5200 added to our studio comparison database article (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ingloryon: OM-D E-M5 or NEX-7 better?!

jpeg shooters are unbelievable

Please compare ISO 1600 D300s:
www.tomx.eu/Testy/NikonD300s_ISO1600.jpg
and the same resolution from D5200:
www.tomx.eu/Testy/NikonD5200_ISO1600_12MPx.jpg
And do it with OM-D (ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and make the average) too.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2013 at 08:25 UTC
On Nikon D5200 added to our studio comparison database article (186 comments in total)

My D300 with this amazing DX sensor would be outstanding camera.
Please compare ISO 1600 D300s:
www.tomx.eu/Testy/NikonD300s_ISO1600.jpg
and the same resolution from D5200:
www.tomx.eu/Testy/NikonD5200_ISO1600_12MPx.jpg

Please take OMD ISO 1600 and 3200 (the same shutter speed is somewhere between them) and show me the 12 MPx picture a compare it!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2013 at 23:10 UTC as 14th comment
On Nikon D5200 added to our studio comparison database article (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: I compared the D5200 to the OMD EM5.

The sensor on the OMD is only 2/3 the size and 2/3 the MP and still far out performs this camera. The OMD has at least as much detail, despite the lower pixel count, and far less noise, especially at high ISO. Turned them both up to 6400 ISO and the D5200 looks terrible compared to the OMD.

So for all those people that need the Nikon badge and the 24MP sticker to impress, knock yourself out.

Pretty sad actually that Nikon can't do better with a much larger sensor and so many more pixels.

Do not look at JPEG. Look at RAW and yu will see D5200 is much better. And you can see at DxOMark.com that OMD ISO is one stop slower. OMD ISO 200 is ISO 100 and OMD ISO 3200 is really ISO 1600. D5200 is only about one third stop slower in comparison to right ISO. D5200 in RAW and comparable shutter time one EV better. JPEGs are tragedy from both, do not care about JPEG here.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2013 at 22:58 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (498 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: Sonykon?

Ruy Penalva thinks than Nikon must produce the sensors in the plants with the title Nikon. When Nikon design the sensors and produce the steppers for the fabrics and Sony will make the serial production in the plants of Sony Semiconductors, Ruy Penlava thinks the label on the camera must not be Nikon, but Sonykon.
You have no computer Dell, but IntelnVidiaKingstonWesternDigitalNonameMarvellDell. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2012 at 23:10 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (498 comments in total)

Nikkor 24-85 is terrible lens, not for 24MPx. Nikkor 24-120/4 has big center-edge difference in sharpness too. Only heavy and expensive zoom 24-70/2.8 is suitable for this FX low-end body. Canon has the best 24-70/2.8 II now, amazing 24-70/4 IS and much better 24-105/4 than Nikkkor lenses. Nikon had better lenses, but last two years every new FX zoom lens is worse than Canon lenses. 70-200/2.8 II is worse than Canon too. Canon full frame lenses are amazing, the last amazing Nikkor FX zoom was 14-24/2.8. Why, Nikon????

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2012 at 23:03 UTC as 110th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

ForeignerOnEarth: Sensor has various parts:
pixels in the silicon, readout channels in the silicon, timing engines, sometimes A/D convertores, unicate color filters, microlenses, unicate AA filter.
These parts can be and are combined for various camera makers. When one camera is 8 fps and the second camera is 4 fps, be definitelly sure the readout channels differ very much and it cannot be the same sensor.
The sensors in D300s and D90 cannot be the same, but everybody talk about they are. Only pixels in the silicon could be the same.
The various camera makers do not have the same AA filter and the same color filters.

4x higher resolution and 2EV gain is 16-times improvement in total.
In 2004 year ISO 800 on APS-C is about ISO 3200 now in 2012 year . I do not calculate FX D600, but DX 5200 - the same area of the sensor.
The efficiency must be under 100%.
Suppose the efficiency is now 80%, yes, it is less but we could suppose 80%.
Were the efficiency in the year 2004 = 80% / 16 = 5% ????

The image quality is 16-times better now. Are the hardware of the sensors 16-times better now? The efficiency was 5% and now is 80% ????

NO, SURE NO.

The sensor hardware is not the carrier of the improvement.
The software of image processing changed!!!! Here is the bigg difference between 2004 and 2012 year. The 16-times improvement is mainly on image processing and the smaller part is the hardware improvement.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2012 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

ForeignerOnEarth: Sensor has various parts:
pixels in the silicon, readout channels in the silicon, timing engines, sometimes A/D convertores, unicate color filters, microlenses, unicate AA filter.
These parts can be and are combined for various camera makers. When one camera is 8 fps and the second camera is 4 fps, be definitelly sure the readout channels differ very much and it cannot be the same sensor.
The sensors in D300s and D90 cannot be the same, but everybody talk about they are. Only pixels in the silicon could be the same.
The various camera makers do not have the same AA filter and the same color filters.

Please see:
The DSLRs changed from 6MPx to 24MPx, this is the 4x smaller pixel and the high ISO in 100% resolution is not 4x worse, but 4x better. The gain in last 8 years is 16x better.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2012 at 15:10 UTC

Sensor has various parts:
pixels in the silicon, readout channels in the silicon, timing engines, sometimes A/D convertores, unicate color filters, microlenses, unicate AA filter.
These parts can be and are combined for various camera makers. When one camera is 8 fps and the second camera is 4 fps, be definitelly sure the readout channels differ very much and it cannot be the same sensor.
The sensors in D300s and D90 cannot be the same, but everybody talk about they are. Only pixels in the silicon could be the same.
The various camera makers do not have the same AA filter and the same color filters.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2012 at 15:09 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
On Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 samples gallery article (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: WOW, so many bad photos!
ISO 3200 very good noise performance!

... and do you see the disturbing noise reduction?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 08:22 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A99 samples gallery article (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Three lenses all defocusing on the right. I think someone licked the SLT mirror. I can't see DPReview having three lenses all with decentering issues. This is a camera issue. I'd bet that SLT mirror got touched somehow.

70-400G The entire right side of image is blurred. Center very sharp. Left sharp enough.

16-35 ZA Entire right side of image blurred crazy. Sharp center and left.

ZA 24-70 Wild field curvature on right side. Front grass on right is sharp. Center sharp. Trees at top rear peak sharp. But trees at top right blurred. They should be sharp, being centered between rear trees and forground grass. Image left side is sharp within focus plane.

Come on DPReview... you're not looking at your samples close enough. Something is wrong here. If you want us to look at them 100%... then you should too. Something is amiss with the landscapes on three different lenses.

You are right.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 08:20 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images article (294 comments in total)
In reply to:

photophile: Wow factor: Possibility to record low-light interior shots at high ISO 25600, hand held, from a compact!

Not-so-wow: Price.

Do you think, that the photographer, who pays $2800 wants such child's colouring book as we can see on the original resolution of the high-iso shots with the young girl on the table? There is the problem here: yes, this is digital compact and digital compacts makes such child's colouring book instead of photos. But such compacts have the price $280, not $2800 and has micro sensor, not full frame sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 13:10 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images article (294 comments in total)
In reply to:

ForeignerOnEarth: The single focal lens could be much better than this one is. Nothing sharp at f/2, bokeh is not O.K. and by smaller aperture the edges should be better.

Yes I am sure. In EXIF is Software = "DSC-RX1 ...", these are JPEGs from camera, no dpreview rendering could affect them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 13:03 UTC
Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »