mmartel

mmartel

Joined on Feb 3, 2013

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On a photo in the Sony 85mm F1.4 GM sample gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Interesting choice of exposure compensation on this one ... -1.7 EV? Going for an artistic high contrast look? Or paranoid about blowing any highlights?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 17:41 UTC as 2nd comment
On a photo in the Sony 85mm F1.4 GM sample gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Just me, or is there quite a bit of unsightly moire in this one?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 17:37 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Steven Lungley: P is for Phooooey: I don’t want another variation of the basic, split aperture lens. At 5.6 the footage looks like it was shot on cell phone. Please add the new tech to a new lens, with a max f/2.0 aperture for some cinematic, selective focus video.

What a bunch of baloney.

If you can't see (or calculate) the depth of field differences between an APS-C sensor at 55mm/f5.6 vs. a phone sensor at ~4mm/f2.0, you're doing something wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen Scharf: Glad to see the X100T here, it has been the most-used camera of mine in 2015 (bought mine January 2).

One thing continues to trouble me about your editorial content. Why do DPR editors continue to foist on their readers that we need more and more megapixels? 16 megapixels in an APS-C sized sensor is more than sufficient resolution for 99% of photographers in 99% of shooting situations and the "sweet-spot" for the functional conflict of resolution vs. noise for an APS-C sensor. All that adding more megapixels will do is add *noise*. We need EVFs with faster refresh rates, AF with servo tracking, and a more comprehensive set of lenses for any given mfr's system.

WE. DON'T. NEED. MORE. MEGAPIXELS.

Stephen, have you read this series on the topics? http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2

Although I agree with your conclusion (most photographers, myself included, don't *need* more megapixels), your assertion that "All that adding more megapixels will do is add *noise*" is not correct.

Per-pixel noise may increase, but this is generally only a slight amount at higher ISOs. In better light, more pixels do allow more cropping, larger print sizes, and/or finer detail with equal noise (after downsizing to the same output dimensions).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 17:56 UTC
On a photo in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50 samples gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Agreed. Nice range of test shots here, DPR. Good work.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 17:39 UTC as 1st comment
On Connect post HTC One A9 launches with 13MP and OIS (26 comments in total)

Count me among the open minded, despite the "Applesque" design. I'm considering upgrading my current 2013 Moto X. But I'm really turned off by the large screen size of all the current Android flagships, and not interested in an iPhone. For those interested in a 5" screen size Android phone with decent performance, good camera, build quality, fingerprint scanner, microSD card, and quick charge functions, there really are not many choices. Maybe Z5 compact from Sony is the closest. But I've read that Sony's software is unimpressive, and I think it's also priced above this model. So this kinda hits a sweet spot in the Android market to some degree, knock off or not. I look forward to a review.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 02:52 UTC as 7th comment

Optical formula deserves some praise, from these samples. The contrast and sharpness look quite good across the frame, and at various lengths and apertures. That's pretty impressive and useful in an outdoor camera.

Also, some nice shots from what's usually a lovely trip. My favorites were of Haleakala, the volcano.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2015 at 04:11 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: DPReview has dedicated more space to this camera than any other in my recent memory. Do they own Sony stock or are they owned by Sony? There are a lot of other cameras out there that deserve some very close attention rather than a casual passing acknowledgement with some pictures.

Seriously, guys, it's a nice little camera and all that, but please give it a rest.

Barney, please ignore the "you're a Sony fanboy/on the Sony payroll" grumblers - although it's clear the moaning and groaning is painful to listen to. Trolls gonna troll.

Please continue to use your own data and sound editorial judgment to guide your calendar.

There is a big mass of RX100 (and RX10 and A7) owners who were pleased with their initial purchase and thinking about upgrading. There are also lots of enthusiasts (like myself) who have considered (and continue to consider) the past RX100 models but didn't bite for various reasons. I think a lot of us are excited to see the continued rapid innovation in the high end compact area, and follow this model family -- as well as other smaller mirrorless and high end compacts like the LX100, G7X, GM1/GM5, Nikon 1, etc. -- with great interest. Similar story for FF mirrorless, and "larger sensor superzoom/all-in-one" like Pany FZ1000, RX10, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2015 at 15:00 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Review (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

wgerhartz: The LX7 offers a lot of camera for its money! I liked it from the very beginning.

However, my comment emphasizes its robustness. I was careless enough to let it drop from about 7 m unto a stone floor. It survived! It fell on the left upper edge (where the flash pops out).There is a dent, and the cover warps out by less than a mm. The flash needs fingernail assistance to pop out. Apart from that, there is not the slightest flaw in the optical quality of the photographs. I am amazed!

I've also got to give Panasonic some props. My LX7 also survived a nearly 2m fall onto a hardwood floor during a clumsy attempt to lift it from its shelf in a cabinet. I was horrified when it happened, certain that the camera was destroyed. But it powered right up and, aside from a slightly dented corner, hasn't skipped a beat. I've shot over 4000 images on it since the fall nearly a year ago with no problems. Credit the design, materials, and manufacturing.

As an aside, our Panasonic TS-5 rugged/waterproof camera also took a 1+m drop onto asphalt this past week when being passed between my wife and I. It also survived with just a couple scratches.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 05:16 UTC
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Moon video recorded with Canon SX50 HS, @1200mm, no digital zoom:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/87469485@N08/13225485093/in/dateposted-public/

That's a great video!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 20:22 UTC
On article X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: I don't understand this camera. It is larger and heavier than an E-pl7 with the Panny 20mm f/1.7 lens. The sensor isn't as good and it doesn't cost much less.

What is the point?

tedolph

"The X30 does a tricky thing, which is to make the experience of shooting with a compact camera feel more like shooting with a 'real camera.'"

This camera is an affordable faux Leica rangefinder. It's for people with nostalgia for film days, either because they lived it, or they fantasize about it. They care as much or more about the shooting experience than the output. people who buy it have money to spare.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2015 at 03:51 UTC
On a photo in the Panasonic Lumix GF7 sample gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)

I see more luma noise in the shadows than I would have expected at ISO 400 on a u4/3 sensor, recognizing that's easily tunable to taste. Doesn't really bother me, personally, just an observation that, as a Nikon CX and DX user, noise profile seems closer to what I see in my CX than DX.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2015 at 13:18 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On photo 02-Dan-ISO_400-ACR in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

I see more luma noise in the shadows than I would have expected at ISO 400 on a u4/3 sensor, recognizing that's easily tunable to taste. Doesn't really bother me, personally, just an observation that, as a Nikon CX and DX user, noise profile seems closer to what I see in my CX than DX.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2015 at 13:18 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On photo 20150110-DSC_4729 in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

I will put you in time out if you keep taking my picture!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 20:46 UTC as 1st comment
On photo 20150110-DSC_4733 in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

This shot with the excellent 30-110 zoom shows off the capabilities of a 1" sensor in fairly good light indoors; also potential for some background blur. Color and contrast are IMO quite good, even at ISO4500. There's noise but great detail is the reward. RAW is easily manageable to taste.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 20:43 UTC as 1st comment
On photo 20150203-DSC_7108 in mmartel's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

I don't know why the camera was set to 1/200s here. Should have shot this at 1/30s or 1/40s. Anyway, ISO 6400 is quite noisy (even with quite a bit of NR applied) but still quite good detail - fine for 8x10" print.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 20:42 UTC as 1st comment
On GalleryItem:3148392 (1 comment in total)

kit lens 10-30mm - 14.5mm 1/125s f4.0 - ISO3600

Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 20:40 UTC as 1st comment
On photo I think I like you... in the - Rich Vivid Colours - Birds (+ Border) challenge (8 comments in total)

Nice shot! Beautiful bird.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2015 at 05:42 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Cane: I love to see all the old people grab for their oxygen masks when a camera is released without a viewfinder.

@ANAYV Your explanation makes sense. I'm still "young" at 40 and still have my near sightedness so while I appreciate an OVF/EVF in the harshest of harsh daylight, I get by fine without one 99.5% of the time. But your comment makes sense why so many older people like to take pictures with iPads. If you're going to use an LCD at arms length in daylight - might as well be the biggest one you can find!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

dgeugene1: I know this comment will provoke howls from the Sony RX100 fans but my experience is that a very good 1/1.7" sensor, in this case the Nikon P7800, is an excellent performer and only begins to diverge from all the 1" sensors at very high ISO's. The smaller sensor, of course, has the benefits of better lenses, lighter cameras, etc.

Where the 'jump' in quality occurs, in my opinion of course, is at 4/3. My LX100 resembles the IQ of my Canon 70D and is a huge 'jump' over the 1" sensors I have tried.

This will now provoke howls from Canon owners but my technical interests do not extend beyond making good pictures.

Interesting to hear, @dgeugene1.

I had a Panasonic LX7 (1/1.7") but went for a Nikon 1 J3 (1") on fire sale late last year. Although the LX7 was actually pretty good, I've been impressed with bump in image quality. I find a major difference with landscapes (much better detail) and high ISO. In fact, I'd say my Nikon 1 delivers RAW IQ quality that's fairly on par with my old Nikon D60 DSLR (except in shadow DR) - of course, in a much more compact package. I recently printed an 8x10" ISO6400 print that looked remarkably good after tinkering in LR.

So I'm not surprised to hear that the modern 4/3" sensors are even better in this regard, and given the longer focal lengths of their lenses, are also a bit closer to DSLR-like bokeh all other things being equal.

Overall, I think we're now in a great position in terms of compact cameras with high IQ.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »