rubank

rubank

Lives in Sweden Grillby, Sweden
Works as a professional
Joined on Aug 7, 2004

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1570 comments in total)
In reply to:

rubank: Interesting. Almost as good as the "old" D800.
Definetly more moié, and less resolution according to DPRs studio comparison, especially in edges and corners.

Possibly a little, and I mean little, less colour noise from ISO 12800 and up.
So what.

It´ s not just in the corners where 810 loses to 800.Look at the line bars. 810 just produces moiré when the going gets tough...
36 Mpix isn´t enough to get rid of the OLPF, you would need at least the double pixel count. Those who claim otherwise have blurry vision.

Nikon´s reason for the omission is just cost reduction.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 10:24 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1570 comments in total)

Interesting. Almost as good as the "old" D800.
Definetly more moié, and less resolution according to DPRs studio comparison, especially in edges and corners.

Possibly a little, and I mean little, less colour noise from ISO 12800 and up.
So what.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 10:01 UTC as 138th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

rubank: Would it really be impossible to make the lens smaller??
I mean, look at the size of the actual lenses compared to the overall size....

Once upon a time there were FF compact (film) cameras with very good lenses a lot smaller than this monster - and they were both wider and faster.

Lot´s of replies and all miss the point :~|

The lens elements (the glass part) in this Sigma are tiny while the housing of said elements is huge (in comparison). The question is why, that was the meaning of comparing to compact FF cameras, since even they had AF. So the huge housing isn´t necessarily due to things like AF...
I think it´s just styling, not a "must-be".

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 12:09 UTC

Would it really be impossible to make the lens smaller??
I mean, look at the size of the actual lenses compared to the overall size....

Once upon a time there were FF compact (film) cameras with very good lenses a lot smaller than this monster - and they were both wider and faster.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 18:52 UTC as 16th comment | 14 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)

If one downloads RAWs from the DPR studio test and develop them in RawTherapee 4.1 at default settings, the result will look a whole lot better. And I mean a lot!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 08:14 UTC as 317th comment | 2 replies
On Nikon issues firmware update for D800/D800E article (38 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Nikon adding features via fw, eh? That's new. Seems like they finally fired the old management and hired someone competent.

It sure is!
But it doesn´t work in LV though, only when using the OVF.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 08:22 UTC
In reply to:

Steen Bay: Well, if something sounds too good to be true... As far I can tell the QE of the Red Dragon must be quite a bit higher than 100% in order to get such a high SNR, and that's hardly the case.

I think you´re forgetting that the QE figure of ~50% is for the green channel only. The aggregate QE of the sensor is far from 50%.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 09:10 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T1 First Impressions Review preview (1656 comments in total)

The X-T1 studio scene shots look awful. Is there something wrong with the demosaicing? Or is this typical of the Fuji sensor...?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 23:38 UTC as 141st comment | 5 replies

Seems a nice lens, BUT:
the exposure is exactly the same at f/1,4 as f/1,2 in the truck series, and I can´t spot any difference in the background blur.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2014 at 09:52 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply

The MTF charts doesn´t look very promising. No better than the Nikkor 24-120/4 - and that is not the best lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 08:13 UTC as 45th comment | 2 replies

Bolt is actually way behind the finishing line in that shot, he´s in the curve, so DPR:s caption that he crosses the finishing line at the moment of the lighning is clearly wrong.

Why make these things up?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2013 at 18:42 UTC as 21st comment | 6 replies

Who cares what vendor makes the grip
as long as Canon holds on to the moronic L-design of their battery grips.

Look at Pentax and Nikon for a proper way to design a battery grip.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2013 at 18:11 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12