rubank

rubank

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

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Neodp: Not withstand the efficacy of the update and overall good or not enough improvement(s) then their its a much greater point here....

No one (hardly?) said (possible or not) this camera was deficient in tracking AF or low light comparatively when they were promoting it's first adopter goodness and new pros!

What does that have to do with value? It means you can't know until the camera has been out a while and put through it's paces for the tasks photographers value the most. It begs the question; what benefits matter most? Subjectivity is not a wide... as it is made out to be. Yes there's room for subjective benefits and horses for courses to a point. There no accounting for tastes. Yet that view is completely overblown; from the perspective of new camera design. Yes that should include the user need, that's the photographer that actually takes pictures. Not Gear Acquisition and paper specs alone. There's a lot more to a total camera than that. It's a warning about over priced vanity.

No, you´re not.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Searching: OK, I see it is only available in CC and not CS6.

It is available for CS6 here
http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2011/03/keeping-photoshop-up-to-date.html#notconnected

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 09:47 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

rubank: How interesting to see what the G7 can do at f/16-22.... (maybe not)

Yeah, 1/160 sec and f/16 is a givaway. Extremely bright, eh.
:)

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 16:41 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 real-world samples article (102 comments in total)

How interesting to see what the G7 can do at f/16-22.... (maybe not)

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 09:48 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: These images are flat and have a cool cast. I hit some of them hard with Photoshop and achieved snap and pop. I applied White Point to remove the cast. Digital ROC was no help.

Is this a beta example?

Everybody's having a great time on a memorable sunny day.

There are some flat and cool pics for sure, but they are mainly with the 100-300 lens as it seems (on my screen).

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 09:46 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (3412 comments in total)
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Beautiful photo Rishi! You really help to show what these cameras can do creatively as well as technically!

Done, thanks.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 13:47 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (3412 comments in total)
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Beautiful photo Rishi! You really help to show what these cameras can do creatively as well as technically!

I agree, very nice photo!
But, in the commentary you say "no banding".
I see a lot of (ugly) banding in that shot, how could you have missed that?

OT: that lens (11-24) looks stunningly good!

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 09:34 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

BarnET: Have to admit.
For a 50mp sensor the ISO performance is pretty impressive!

To BarnET:
Not if you process to the same output size AND the same resolution. Then the high Mp sensors win even at high ISO.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

This will turn into an endless debate if we were to continue, so I´ll just recommend that you d/l the 16 Mp RAW and the 64 Mp (HR) RAW. Convert them (e.g. in ACR) and pixel peep to your hearts content. That should do it.

Don´t look at DPR:s HR conversion because there is something wrong in their conversion. D/l and do your own conversion. I use ACR at default settings.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

You can actually see the advantage even when pixel peepeing, but the point is that an image is almost always resampled for output and the diffraction is the same regardless of sensor pixel pitch - it is a property of the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

If you have troubles seeing this, take your own studio scene at f/5,6 and develop it to a 64 Mp image and tell me where you see the diffraction effects...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

You´re right about the number of images, but wrong on everything else. Diffraction isn´t worse than for a single 16 Mp image.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

It is one 64 Mp image built from 4 16 Mp images. Diffraction or other issues will not be bigger than for each exposure.
And the effects you´re worried about aren´t worse anyway, for the same output size, even if it was a single 64 Mp exposure; downsampling helps only at pixel level, which is a moot point.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

I dont agree at all.
I have converted to 64 Mp JPG and the result is truly impressive.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 18:43 UTC

I have a question for the DPR crew.

Oly´s HR mode is always referred to as 40 Mpix. But when i download a HR ORF I get a 64 Mpix image, also after conversion. Why is this never mentioned?
(I guess the in-camera JPG is reduced to 40 Mpix, but still?).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 17:24 UTC as 55th comment | 13 replies
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1607 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 (1607 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 160th 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 (1267 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
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »