Greg VdB

Lives in Earth
Works as a Geoscientist
Has a website at www.pbase.com/gbleek
Joined on Sep 6, 2002

Comments

Total: 416, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

It was a noble effort of 20x24 Studio to keep this going, but unfortunately you can't escape the laws of economics. Let's hope someone with unlimited funds and a passion for film photography steps in to save this part of photography's heritage.

On the video. I guess you'd need to see the prints in real life to fully be able to appreciate them, but even at reduced (and weirdly colour-balanced video) viewing, they showed great character. That's something else than firing away digital frame after digital frame! I also loved seeing the professional side as well as the cheeky personality of the ballet dancer.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 08:57 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: The high cost is obviously a result of the massive R+D costs for this complex new optical design.

Is there something like a 1,000,000 dollar bill? Rolled up that's the best homeopathic lens you could ever buy!

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Fantastic footage indeed! I particularly enjoy that delicate artificial lighting in the macros, and the gently weaving underwater forest. Some other nice videos (shot using various cameras) on their Vimeo channel as well, btw.

I know this is probably not achievable, but I wouldn't mind at all if DPR produced a video in cooperation with Backscatter like that one about astrophotography. Can't wait to hear Barney or Dale talking in the diving suit :-)

Obviously you'd need overview images as well, which Barney could shoot from his kayak. Win-win!

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 16:30 UTC

Fantastic footage indeed! I particularly enjoy that delicate artificial lighting in the macros, and the gently weaving underwater forest. Some other nice videos (shot using various cameras) on their Vimeo channel as well, btw.

I know this is probably not achievable, but I wouldn't mind at all if DPR produced a video in cooperation with Backscatter like that one about astrophotography. Can't wait to hear Barney or Dale talking in the diving suit :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 11:47 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
On article 2016 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (256 comments in total)

While I enjoy the roundup itself (I have no qualms with the a7R II coming out on top), the title once again is poorly chosen. So this is the 2000 dollar plus category? Ok, name it as such then in the title, in line with the previous roundups. By saying "Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras" instead, you imply two things:
(1) cheaper cameras, like the K-1, the 7DII, and the D500, are not even of semi-professional level;
(2) only the astronomically expensive ones (e.g. 1DxII, D5, 645Z) are truly professional.
No wonder this rubs people the wrong way.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 05:41 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies
On article Fast telezoom: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 sample images (164 comments in total)

Some very nice pictures in this gallery! It might not be the "bokeh is overrated" mob's cup of tea, but I thoroughly enjoyed many of the (near-)wide open shots. The waterfall at f/1.8, for instance, which goes to illustrate that shallow dof has its place in landscape photography as well.

For anyone interested, Lenstip gave the 50-100mm a raving review:
http://www.lenstip.com/473.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_50-100_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM_Introduction.html

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 13:56 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

Greg VdB: That's a lot of camera for little money. As a Pentax, it will sell in smaller amounts than similar offerings from bigger brands, even if many specs are better. For that reason, I hope DPR makes it a priority to review the K-70 as soon as it becomes available. Not just to give it well-deserved recognition, but also to put pressure on other manufacturers to step up their game. (and no, I don't shoot Pentax)

I can only speak from personal experience, but my introduction to ILC digital photography was tied to Canon't Eos 300D (the first "affordable" one), and by the time that Canon wasn't leading anymore, my collection of lenses and accessories had already grown to such an extent that a change would be too much of hassle for me to consider it. In case I'd be getting serious about photography right now, I would definitely consider Pentax.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:42 UTC

That's a lot of camera for little money. As a Pentax, it will sell in smaller amounts than similar offerings from bigger brands, even if many specs are better. For that reason, I hope DPR makes it a priority to review the K-70 as soon as it becomes available. Not just to give it well-deserved recognition, but also to put pressure on other manufacturers to step up their game. (and no, I don't shoot Pentax)

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 08:50 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Satyaa: Useful insights. All the sample photos were excellent.

Needing higher shutter speed with cameras having higher resolution was something I didn't know before. Good to know.

Thanks.

Ok, so our "difference in opinion" just boils down to a different understanding/interpretation of the central point of the conversation (what you say in the post above is what I said as well in my first post). No biggie, that's the interwebs for ya...

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: Useful insights. All the sample photos were excellent.

Needing higher shutter speed with cameras having higher resolution was something I didn't know before. Good to know.

Thanks.

So you're saying that, at a fixed output size, a print from a 20Mp camera with the finest detail blurred by motion, can visually appears less sharp than the same scene shot at 6Mp where this fine detail isn't resolved? I must say, I have never had the chance to look at a side-by-side comparison that meets these criteria (have you?), but I find this difficult to accept. For now I stand by my comment that "you don't lose resolution by using a sensor with a higher pixel density", and I would really like to see Rishi investigate this in a controlled environment. If it is true what you say, then we should all carry cameras with different pixel densities so that we can match them to the prevailing light conditions (/shutter speed) to obtain ultimate percepted sharpness.

(Note: I'm not discussing cropping or pixel-peeping here, I'm talking overall percepted sharpness)

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: Useful insights. All the sample photos were excellent.

Needing higher shutter speed with cameras having higher resolution was something I didn't know before. Good to know.

Thanks.

"The people "correcting" the man who puts food on his table with photography clearly haven't done his job."

@Ednaz: there is nothing in Jonathan or my post that conflicts with what you said ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 13:25 UTC

Nice article. Having recently tried to photograph the tiny and superbly unpredictable swallows wooshing past my window, all these subjects seem way too easy though ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 13:08 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

Satyaa: Useful insights. All the sample photos were excellent.

Needing higher shutter speed with cameras having higher resolution was something I didn't know before. Good to know.

Thanks.

Well, that statement is a little bit dubious. All other variables the same, a moving subject will travel the same distance across the frame regardless of the number of megapixels. Therefore, if a photo is of high enough quality to be published from the lower-resolution camera at a certain shutter speed, it will also suffice to use the higher-resolution camera at identical shutter speed. In other words: you don't lose resolution by using a sensor with a higher pixel density.
A more correct statement would be that *per-pixel sharpness* is achieved only at higher shutter speeds with the higher-resolution sensor, and that the combination of faster shutter speeds and a higher-resolution sensor can offer more fine detail at a certain print size, or permits a higher level of cropping in post.

[edit: should have refreshed the page before replying...]

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 12:58 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 Pixel Shift Resolution: Updated Field Test (209 comments in total)

Thank you Chris, Barney, and Simon to fix this article. For us in Europe it looked like a long time before the first version was taken down, but considering the time difference (no "Sleepless in Seattle" at DPR HQ apparently), this was handled well.

The results are much more favorable now for Pentax's pixel shift technique. The persistence of those cross-hatch artifacts (not just on leaves, also in the water pool) does bother me, since it defeats the entire purpose of obtaining that little bit of extra detail for large viewing/printing. Then again, those going the extra mile probably won't mind some cloning in post for now, and the software will probably improve over time.

My comment from the first version still stands though: what is the real-world benefit of pixel shift? From which print size will a non-pixel peeper notice any difference? To me, even in the static scene, the difference between off and on only looks similar to shooting a lens wide-open or stopped down one stop...

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2016 at 02:23 UTC as 47th comment
In reply to:

Siobhan A: Interesting, the FZ1000 has the same amount of noise or possibly slightly less at higher ISOs. RX10 colors look poor too. Add RX10's inability to focus on a moving object due to no PDAF and no DFD.

The RX10iii had a couple nice gimmicks, but FZ1000 beats it or equals it in so many areas for 1/3rd the price the Panasonic is clearly the better value and usually the better option.

They said that the "destroys" just reflected their enthusiasm for the optical performance of the lens. Ok, but that's a little funny considering you can't put the lens on a different body ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: I could be nasty and say that my 3-yr old cheapo 70D destroys the RX10 III in this test, but obviously a camera like this has to be evaluated on the total package and within its class. Going by this and last week's tests, I have no reservations that people interested in the super zoom approach would greatly enjoy using the RX10 III, and can get great results from it as well. At the same time, some much cheaper super zooms are only pixel-peeping levels behind, and ILC's could provide further capabilities at a small portability/zoom penalty as well, so there's plenty of options for all ;-)

As I said, plenty of options for everybody's specific needs and pocket-depth ;-)

@Lawrencew: nice test, it goes to show that in good light conditions, the RX10 III can deliver very good results! (my comment about the 70D "destroying" it was obviously a dig at last week's headline, and referred mostly to low-light performance, which I know isn't fair given the sensor size difference - just like last week's headline wasn't fair on the "competition"...)

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 14:46 UTC

I could be nasty and say that my 3-yr old cheapo 70D destroys the RX10 III in this test, but obviously a camera like this has to be evaluated on the total package and within its class. Going by this and last week's tests, I have no reservations that people interested in the super zoom approach would greatly enjoy using the RX10 III, and can get great results from it as well. At the same time, some much cheaper super zooms are only pixel-peeping levels behind, and ILC's could provide further capabilities at a small portability/zoom penalty as well, so there's plenty of options for all ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 12:55 UTC as 21st comment | 5 replies
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: A test I would like to see is the following: shoot a completely static scene (e.g. architecture, but with plenty of fine detail), once without and once with pixel shift. Then print both images at increasing sizes (or crop to different levels to keep the costs down ;-) ), and hang both sets on the wall from "small" to "big", randomizing the pixel shift vs non-pixel shift position. Note for yourself first in which print you see a clear difference. Then, invite ten office workers to (individually) evaluate from a viewing distance of at least 1 meter the prints from small to big. Record at what point they can distinguish "pixel shift" from "non-pixel shift", and let us know what the equivalent print sizes are.

Of course we want the best possible quality as a starting point, but often I get the impression that due to too much pixel-peeping, we have lost a sense of perspective on real-world advantages regarding the minute differences we see in studio tests or comparisons like this one.

36Mp versus 4Mp, now that would actually be radical :-) But I hear what you're saying. I joined DPR over a decade ago to learn photography from the great community that frequented the S&G forum back then. Unavoidably, I have taken an interest in the technical developments as well, but never to the point that it stopped me from actually enjoying using my (sometimes years-old) camera. And I still have a 75*50cm print hanging on the wall that I took with my 6Mp Eos 300D, shot in jpeg, even if it was a high-contrast scene of a glacier in bright sunlight.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 07:39 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)

A test I would like to see is the following: shoot a completely static scene (e.g. architecture, but with plenty of fine detail), once without and once with pixel shift. Then print both images at increasing sizes (or crop to different levels to keep the costs down ;-) ), and hang both sets on the wall from "small" to "big", randomizing the pixel shift vs non-pixel shift position. Note for yourself first in which print you see a clear difference. Then, invite ten office workers to (individually) evaluate from a viewing distance of at least 1 meter the prints from small to big. Record at what point they can distinguish "pixel shift" from "non-pixel shift", and let us know what the equivalent print sizes are.

Of course we want the best possible quality as a starting point, but often I get the impression that due to too much pixel-peeping, we have lost a sense of perspective on real-world advantages regarding the minute differences we see in studio tests or comparisons like this one.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 06:29 UTC as 60th comment | 4 replies
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)
In reply to:

biza43: Given that it is double the price of the competition, it better be better than the competition?

@Barney: it saddens me to read that people would send you hate-mail, but at the same time I feel it's unfair to qualify me and some others as fanboys or worse. You might not agree with our criticism of the title, but some of those comments were well enough reasoned to be taken seriously. I believe my own intital comment was reasonably nuanced (http://www.dpreview.com/news/5980899251/sony-rx10-iii-lens-comparison?comment=4498447400), and would add that in the past I've given you and other DPR staff praise as well where IMO it was due. All I want to say, I guess, is that not all criticism is trolling or fanboyism... But now it's time to put this baby to bed. Have a nice weekend!

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 22:10 UTC
Total: 416, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »