mmartel

mmartel

Joined on Feb 3, 2013

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
On P1000283 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

Why F8 in this situation for such a small sensor camera? Seems a poor choice (whether by auto or manual setting) for this shot.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 07:24 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

I enjoyed the review and, as a Moto X owner, thought you were thorough, accurate and fair in your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses.

I did want to point out, though, that I think you might have been a little bit harsher on the overexposure issues with the Moto X than you were in your Nexus 5 review. For example, look at your caption on page 6 of your Nexus 5 review: "In good light, the Nexus 5 delivers pleasant, balanced images." But the right half of the image is basically overexposed building. You were also a bit more apologetic for the Nexus 5 blowing highlights in the fruit stand still life, saying "Blown highlights remain a constant of mobile photography" rather than "With the Nexus 5, you can expect some blown highlights in high contrast scenes."

For any who read this, and are curious, overall I'm satisfied with the Moto X camera (having come from a Nexus 4 as my last phone). It's got weaknesses but overall it's not too shabby.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 09:22 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

peevee1: Who cares, the review is at least half a year too late anyway.

DPR should wake up to the speed of technological development today. If it is not within 1 month after release, it is too late. And no amount of inconsequential details (like their 3-page menu guides for cameras) can save them - by the time you release it, it is just no more than a historical research paper.

Wow, cranky much? You know, no one is forcing you to read ancient reviews.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 22:53 UTC
On Have Your Say: Best Enthusiast Zoom Compact of 2013 article (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elyharbour: I wonder what these votes really mean? Most will just end up voting for the one they bought (or lusted after). Doesn't make it the best. And how do any of us know whether the ones we didn't buy or try, are better or worse. Ah well, harmless enough I suppose...

I had the same thought! Agree - it's (probably) harmless fun, that will probably reflect camera sales volume more than anything.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 00:06 UTC
On P1010454 (1) photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Lightly boosted sat, contrast, and sharpening to allow comparison with straight OOC jpeg. This was shot through thick glass with maximum iZoom (Panasonic's optimized 2x digital zoom).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:10 UTC as 1st comment
On P1000432 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Untouched OOC jpeg

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:05 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010724 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

OOC jpeg

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:02 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010743 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Slight fill light to OOC jpeg.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:02 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010529 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

OOC jpeg

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:02 UTC as 1st comment
On P1000955 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

OOC jpeg.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:01 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010385 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Used 2x iZoom (180mm equiv). Otherwise OOC jpeg.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 22:01 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010463 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Used 2x iZoom (180mm equiv).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 21:59 UTC as 1st comment
On P1010454 photo in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Shot through thick glass and used 2x iZoom (180mm equiv).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2013 at 21:59 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

ronmyers_us: In the past, I used Bibble Pro. When Bibble sold out to Correl, the name was changed to After Shot Pro. This software is availble for Windows, Mac and Linex. I like it because of the capability to make adjustments to selected areas independent of the rest of the picture. I have only compared it to the raw file processing addition to Photoshop Elements and find it much superior. In addition to allowing adjustments to selected areas, one can also clone and heal areas of the photo. It does not eliminate the need for editors (like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro) to complete editing, but it does provide capabilities which I am unable to do after conversion to jpg or tiff format.

Also, the cost is less than any of these three programs. It would be great to see how this less expensive software compares to the higher priced software.

I've been using AfterShot Pro after trialing LR4 and Capture NX. I've found I personally prefer the AfterShot Pro RAW converter with my Nikon D5100 and D60 images. It's also quite a bit faster to load and process images on my 5-year old Dell laptop.

So I have to disagree with borgelite. I think it's a great piece of software (the others are pretty darn good, too).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2013 at 18:15 UTC
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14