scott_mcleod

Lives in Australia Australia
Works as a student
Joined on Jun 2, 2007

Comments

Total: 65, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article 2016 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (111 comments in total)

The spec line for the Q says it's APS-C but the text says FF...

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 12:14 UTC as 37th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

wildbild: Steve McCurry is interested.

Lol

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 02:13 UTC

Beautiful...

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 22:45 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Assessing skintones by taking a photo of a photo is a bit like a broken pencil - pointless.

The spectral features of a 4-colour print (under artificial light) are vastly different from the spectral densities of real skin. Hence, the results may be quite different.

Real-world example:
- If I take a photo of hot coals with my Canon S90 with white balance set to Incandescent, IR leakage will make the coals appear purple, even close to blue.
- If I take the same photo with my Canon 5D Mark II, the coals are red as they should because this camera has a proper IR filter.
- If I print the 5D2 photo on paper, take a photo of this photo with my S90, then upload it to the web for all to see, it will give a completely incorrect impression of the S90's colour capabilities.

Re: the continuous spectrum source - I would love to see how this looked to various different cameras!

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

Cameracist: Still hope for some bigger update for 1st generation a7 cameras :'(

Signed.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: Canon still the best.

No Honda is best!

Err... I mean Chevy!

Umm... forget I said anything...

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 00:01 UTC
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: So, no AFMA? It's a real shame if that feature is still missing (the 50D was the last XXD body to have it, right?)

My bad - thanks for the correction!

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 06:45 UTC

So, no AFMA? It's a real shame if that feature is still missing (the 50D was the last XXD body to have it, right?)

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 06:20 UTC as 55th comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (266 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Why would Fuji do this?

- no viewfinder (so you have to hold it at arms' length)
- 1-stop slower lens than the X100
- same generic 28mm FOV as a phone
- no IS...

If it was a couple of hundred $ cheaper and used a standard Bayer sensor then I could almost see the sense in it. Almost.

:(

When I was a teenager I could see a screen held up close. Not any more. But the main point is that having to hold it away from your body greatly increases the risk of shake. Add in the slower lens and you can see where I was going with this.

The 28mm comment was not a bash on phones as such - just that it's one less thing to differentiate it from what everyone already has in their pocket (unlike the X100!) and therefore one fewer selling point in favor of buying a dedicated camera. Also a FOV shared by Ricoh and Nikon (remember the Coolpix A fire-sale prices?)

I probably worded my comment badly due to my intense disappointment at the time... (FWIW I rather the Leica Q had a 35 or 50mm FOV, but that camera would be way out of my price range).

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 07:26 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X70 (266 comments in total)

Why would Fuji do this?

- no viewfinder (so you have to hold it at arms' length)
- 1-stop slower lens than the X100
- same generic 28mm FOV as a phone
- no IS...

If it was a couple of hundred $ cheaper and used a standard Bayer sensor then I could almost see the sense in it. Almost.

:(

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 06:28 UTC as 68th comment | 17 replies
In reply to:

The Squire: This is the new low-light king - Excellent control of chroma noise, even at high ISOs.

Control of CA could be a worthwhile reason to use contrast-enhancing filters with this camera, just like with B&W film, but for somewhat different reasons (as long as you know what the lens is doing!). But that would kill the sensitivity advantage of not having a CFA...

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
In reply to:

Martin.au: What's with the dinky little tripod mount?

I was just thinking the same thing. It looks like it's... struggling...

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 22:19 UTC

Just a thought... maybe the visible-light performance is somehow severely compromised (even with a filter) and the "usage agreement" says you won't put non-IR photos from the Ricoh flagship on the net because people who don't know any better might think the 645 is terrible?

Otherwise it's utterly ludicrous (the conditions, not the camera)

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 21:52 UTC as 19th comment
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: Now please Sony, give us this uncompressed Mode (or even better: lossless compressed 14-bit RAW mode) for the now "old" A7, A7R & A7S. So everybody would be happy - thanks a lot, Sony.

This seriously makes me want to grab an original A7 while they're on sale here for just over a grand. I have a Novoflex adapter gathering dust for my collection of Minolta MD lenses. The EVF of the A7x series will probably be the closest I can get to the fun of using a MF film SLR with a really great finder, only digital... Please, Sony!

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 01:32 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: In-lens IS or IBIS. Either way. Maybe a bit better in the corners but 35mm EFOV is just right for this type of camera IMO, and stabilization would extend the available-light shooting ability tremendously. 28 is too wide, especially when you only have 16MP for cropping (if you need less wide, that is).

If they could make a less expensive Bayer version that'd be sweet (not holding my breath for that one!). Otherwise, don't mess with the formula, please!

@ rjx: I have taken plenty of shots with the Canon 35mm IS on FF at ISO 3200-6400, f/2 and 1/10s or slower. I don't know about you but I sure can't hold a camera steady at those speeds (tripod or monopod would be dangerous in this location so hand-holding only)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 22:40 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens (334 comments in total)

In-lens IS or IBIS. Either way. Maybe a bit better in the corners but 35mm EFOV is just right for this type of camera IMO, and stabilization would extend the available-light shooting ability tremendously. 28 is too wide, especially when you only have 16MP for cropping (if you need less wide, that is).

If they could make a less expensive Bayer version that'd be sweet (not holding my breath for that one!). Otherwise, don't mess with the formula, please!

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 22:46 UTC as 123rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

J A C S: 1. Very misleading graph (the 1st one). The vertical axis should start from 0.

2. "DxO does something similar in their 'Print' mode display of their data; however, that levels the playing field a bit much to an output of 8MP, [...]"

It does not. They show 2.4 EV difference at 8mp, you compute 2.5.

Re point #1 - I thought the same thing, and remember seeing exactly this technique in a classic book called "How to Lie with Statistics" back when I was in high school...

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 22:21 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Maybe I'm imagining things, but the intro (and most of the review) seems very cagily worded - almost damning with faint praise - and includes some rather odd statements, such as, "a camera where you don't have to think about whether it has a mirror or not" (really? This is "a thing" now?) and "16MP isn't exactly cutting-edge at this point" (are there any m4/3 cams with more, at any price?). As for using "try" three times on the first page... how does it "try not to be mirrorless" any more than the E-M10? Or am I missing some critical difference in the form factor? (the hand-grip makes it "less mirrorless", perhaps?)

Seems like a very good camera to me. I almost get the feeling that the reviewer would like it better if it had a Samsung-style smartphone-like interface (kill me now, please) and is maybe selling potential buyers short in this respect.

BTW, it's "eke", not "eek"...

Hi Richard,

Fair enough with the MP comparison to APS-C. Maybe I was extra-sensitive to the way this review was written because I've been really looking forward to seeing how the G7 stacked up. A return to more direct external controls is something I am a big fan of - I enjoy using my old G2 for that exact reason.

Shame about the shutter shock, though. I wonder how much more a better-damped mechanical shutter would add to the price? Assuming there is one that would overcome the problem in such a lightweight body. It does seem strange that this is an issue when there's no reflex mirror "flapping around"! I would assume the mirror assembly would have more inertia than the shutter, but it doesn't seem to affect small DSLRs, even though APS-C shutters have more distance to travel...

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 09:12 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review (495 comments in total)

Maybe I'm imagining things, but the intro (and most of the review) seems very cagily worded - almost damning with faint praise - and includes some rather odd statements, such as, "a camera where you don't have to think about whether it has a mirror or not" (really? This is "a thing" now?) and "16MP isn't exactly cutting-edge at this point" (are there any m4/3 cams with more, at any price?). As for using "try" three times on the first page... how does it "try not to be mirrorless" any more than the E-M10? Or am I missing some critical difference in the form factor? (the hand-grip makes it "less mirrorless", perhaps?)

Seems like a very good camera to me. I almost get the feeling that the reviewer would like it better if it had a Samsung-style smartphone-like interface (kill me now, please) and is maybe selling potential buyers short in this respect.

BTW, it's "eke", not "eek"...

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 03:17 UTC as 105th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

mjordan1: Please, please! No more reference to "fluorine" coatings. Fluorine is a gas at room temperature and very reactive. The coatings used are " fluoride" coatings e.g. calcium/magnesium fluoride, both of which are ionic compounds and not elements like fluorine.

I believe it's actually a fluorinated polysiloxane, but the specific details of the functional group/s are probably proprietary. FWIW.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2015 at 05:42 UTC
Total: 65, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »