u007

u007

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Has a website at www.frescoglobe.com
Joined on Feb 21, 2012

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ivan Lietaert: "a top notch fast 35mm autofocus prime without breaking the bank"
Priced £900, the author obviously must be making a fortune writing for DPreview! This lens is priced at a working man's monthly income. I wouldn't call that cheap! Please think twice before you write this kind of thing!

Get it for £535 from Hong Kong. Absolute bargain!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 23:56 UTC

Please just use vbulletin or something standard.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 11:54 UTC as 200th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Alpha SLT-A99 preview (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Make Believe: Where is dpreview getting this wrong information from? The camera can shoot at 10fps not 6fps LOL

NO it can't. Only 10fps in a special "crop mode" where it uses the central portion of the image. That doesn't count, sorry.

Weird how the a77 could shoot 10fps with 24mp, but the a99 can't. I thought that was the main benefit of SLT designs...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:36 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Hands-on Preview preview (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

NomadicVision: I find the focal length choice for these fixed lens full frame cameras odd. A 35mm is not exactly a popular choice for SLRs, so why for this camera? Its an awkward length - not wide enough for scenery and too wide for portraits. I guess its supposed to be for environmental portrait/street photography. Imo, a 24mm or a 85mm would have been more useful.

Really? I always thought 35mm is the perfect focal length. And 35mm lenses ARE popular. It's just that 35/1.4 costs a LOT and 50mm is much cheaper.

35mm/f2 is long and bokehlicious enough for pictures of people (obviously not compressed 85mm headshots, but you'll get a nice framing of somebody a couple feet in front of you), but 35mm is also a good tourist/scenery focal length too. You don't really need/want ULTRA wide because most of the time it just makes a boring shot with too much sky/water/floor.

Also consider that this thing has more resolution than a 5d2 or 5d3, so you can crop a lot too. And with a Zeiss lens which is matched perfectly to the sensor, it will look incredible at 100% view. Anyone else who has the Fuji X100 will know what I mean!

I think the RX1 looks amazing!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:12 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: Hmm, so lower pixel density really does equal lower noise, nice.

Pretty sure the d800 won the shadow pushing noise competition...

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 00:14 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

LSE: so, if I add up the bar's lenght on the final score, the nikon has more higher bars than the canon....yet the overall score is the same?

shouldn't the lower canon bars be offset by the higher canon bars for the score to be identical?

I wish dpreview would provide numeric values instead of bar charts so we could take the average ourselves and figure out how they arrived to the 5DmkIII score.

if the bar size is taken to be 100% and one averages the lenghts, it looks like the 5DmkIII really scored a high 70's and was padded to please advertisers/audience.

I tried this too. The bars don't add up at all. Unless some bars are weighted more than others, a joint score of 82 doesn't make sense.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 00:13 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

malebocks: Is it technically possible for Canon to improve its JPEG engine via firmware?

Probably. But the thing is, this is a really bad problem with cameras.

My X100 puts out amazing jpegs. And if dSLRs could have better processing to give us what we want, we wouldn't need raw. If the white balance, colours, shadows and noise reduction in camera were all excellent, the vast majority of us would never need raw.

The only reason i shoot raw is because my camera frequently gets the white balance wrong, is inconsistent shot to shot, and often I want to fill in shadows or retain highlights. If it did it all for me in jpeg, I wouldn't shoot raw.

So we should definitely be asking for better jpeg engines. "Just shoot raw" isn't much of an answer. It's a compromise.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 00:09 UTC
On Fujifilm unveils FinePix X100 large-sensor compact article (1 comment in total)

The Fuji X100 is awesome! I posted my own review with 20 real-life full-size downloadable sample images here:

http://www.frescoglobe.com/2012/05/14/fuji-x100-hands-on-review/

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2012 at 00:52 UTC as 1st comment
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Münchhausen: To Amadou Diallo/dpreview:
Thx a lot for your very usefull review, but could you please post:
a) a viewinder comparison/review section
and
b) an evaluation of the crop mode with some real-world samples
(I´m very excited about this double possibility to use the D800 in FX and DX: how is the image quality, and DR? With a AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1.8G the D800 transforms in an D7000 with almost 16MP...)

You want to review the crop mode?

Do you understand how "crop mode" works?

If so, just get the raw file and crop out the middle area. That's your answer. I don't see how you need samples for this since you already have them in every single full-res file that you take.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:14 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Page 1 of the review says, "Both cameras share very similar proportions and the D800 weighs only 50 grams less [than the 5D Mark III]."

As I pointed out in a Feedback message yesterday, that is wrong. Although the D800 lost weight compared to the D700, and the 5D Mark III gained weight compared to the 5D Mark II, the Canon still weighs substantially less than the Nikon. About 50 g less, in fact. It's unfortunate that thousands of people will forever think the Nikon is lighter because of this mistake. Canon should be given credit for making the lighter camera.

Since you have the cameras, and you're reviewing them, you'd do us a favour to weigh them instead of presenting the manufacturer's claims. The claims are often slightly inaccurate or downright wrong – the latter because the people running the various manufacturer websites aren't technical experts, and there is often confusion about what exactly is being weighed (CIPA standards, with or without battery and memory card, etc.).

Ken Rockwell did:
Canon 5d3 with battery and card = 956g
Nikon d800 with battery and card = 994g

Nikon d800 is 38g heavier. The end.

The only thing that matters is this generation, so their weight gain or loss compared to the d700 or 5d2 doesn't matter.

That said, I don't think 38g matters either. You could reduce that amount of weight by not carrying around spare coins in your pocket, or getting a lighter keyring for your keys.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

CLEANSHOT: For those of us deciding between Nikon D800 and Canon 5D Mark iii, Canon has probably lost hundreds if not thousand's of potential sales with their "tape fix". Just not acceptable, considering the price tag.

I think the 5d3 costing more and having worse image quality in every measurable way was what decided it for me.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2012 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

HiRez: I can't think of a worse, more confusing name for a filter-making company.

So do B&H.

EVERYBODY called them B&H, but their website is "bandh" which looks more like Band H to me.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

maico: It's worth remembering most pro photographers are VAT registered and can reclaim the 20% VAT. The D4 at RRP (before any dealer discounts) would be £4408 GBP.

I have a feeling Nikon USA will quietly put the D800 price up 10% in the near future.

You say that, but of course being registered for VAT means that you have to charge VAT on sales, or deduct the 20% from every sale you make. i.e. a wedding for £1000. You either charge VAT and charge the couple £1200, or you absorb the cost, and pay £200 tax and take home £800.

So on the d4 you save £800, but once you've had more than £4400 of income, you'll be at a net loss. So it would only work in your favour if you weren't a very successful photographer :P

Otherwise you can turn over up to £70k before needing to be VAT registered!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 22:03 UTC

Utter BS. System error my ass

They priced THREE cameras wrong. Not one, but ALL of them.

And people were pre-ordering for 5 WEEKS before Nikon UK noticed that the price was too low? Rubbish. That's a total lie. I could maybe understand if they realised after 1-2 days, but not 5 weeks and thousands of pre-orders.

And then they have the cheek to call it an "unfortunate mistake" and make it sounds like they're doing us some good by correcting it- paying £200 less doesn't sound unfortunate to me.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 10:30 UTC as 131st comment | 3 replies
On First Impressions: Using the Nikon D800 article (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deeso: "If you're planning on purchasing a D800, some extra RAM for your PC should probably also be on your shopping list..." Thankfully RAM is cheap these days. 32GB configurations wont break the bank.

I think that hard drive is more important. In Lightroom, you're needing to load those files but also write the preview data into a folder. It's why Lightroom is sometimes laggy and delays when you try to view at 100%.

And of course, exporting files means that you are creating and writing a ton of jpegs, tiffs, psd or whatevers.

Faster hard drive = faster picture editing.

Crucial M3 is a good bet for a main drive. I do all of my picture editing on one. Then a few 2Tb HDDs are storage and backups.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 08:34 UTC
On First Impressions: Using the Nikon D800 article (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I can open D800 RAW files on a 3Ghz dual core antique Athlon with 4GB RAM, to my amazement. It ain't fast, but until I double the RAM it'll do-cost £200 s/hand..

Of course. The whole "I'll have to upgrade my PC" thing is so over-stated.

When I travel I use my netbook to edit Sony a850 files (24.6mp, and a raw file is around 40Mb). It isn't fast, but it gets the job done.

My i7 920, 6Gb memory and SSD churn through them no problem. And they're 1-2 years old now.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 08:31 UTC
On Canon announces EOS 5D Mark III 22MP full-frame DSLR article (488 comments in total)

Damn.. in the UK it is £2999. A d800 is only £2399

If you want the new 24-70L it is £2399.

So for the price of a 5d3 with 24-70 I could buy a d800 and two Nikon 1.4 primes.

Also, the samples on the Canon website look rubbish. Very plasticy. The one of the girl in the red jacket is gross. Very mushy even though it's ISO100. Tons of noise reduction on the higher ISO samples too. The northern light photo looks like a screenshot from a computer game. Maybe it's jpeg compression, but they really aren't a good representation of a camera.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 13:29 UTC as 79th comment | 2 replies
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17