pixel_peeper

pixel_peeper

Joined on Jul 2, 2011

Comments

Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10
On Minox announces tiny, retro-styled DCC 14.0 camera news story (153 comments in total)

We can be thankful it's not $2390.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2013 at 06:51 UTC as 50th comment | 1 reply
On DxOMark investigates lenses for the Nikon D800 news story (93 comments in total)

The DXO score apparently uses centre resolution only, which explains why the Sigma 50 and the Samyang 85 have DXO scores that are higher than better lenses. Mostly you can't see the difference between the resolution of different lenses in the centre, but you sure can in the corners! Of course, the corners don't matter for portraits, but neither does the centre.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 00:21 UTC as 22nd comment
On Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review news story (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: The odd thing is, when I look at the RAW images from the test set-up, the Fuji doesn't seem to resolve as well as some of the competition, at least until very high ISO where its low-noise helps.

The ACR Raw output is more blurred than the out-of-camera jpeg, which is itself not as sharp as the NEX7 or EM5.

If it's not possible for a raw converter to produce sharper pictures than Fuji's out-of-camera jpegs, I'd say this camera and the XPro1 are for people who especially hate moiré (or for shots that the photographer knows will be badly affected by it) and are prepared to sacrifice resolution. The AA filters of the Bayer-sensor competition are never strong enough to eliminate it. One strong enough would probably produce pictures like these. A better solution for good light is the 15 Mp Foveon. That leaves the Fujis for moiré-prone pictures in poor light.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 03:07 UTC

A waste of bandwidth, money. and power. There's no point in having pixels any smaller than the angular resolution of the human eye. There's no point in a huge screen either. Positioned 50 cm in front of a 150 cm-wide screen, I'd have to get out of my seat to examine the corners in the detail provided. It's more convenient to position the appropriate part of the picture in front of me with a mouse, in which case a screen 50 cm wide or a little larger will do.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2013 at 08:33 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review news story (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Dpreview why do you post jpgs for samples for reviews of lenses?!

It's bad enough for camera reviews but for lens reviews too?!

And how about standardizing some shots that will help the reader see for him or herself the edge to edge performance of the lens at different apertures and focal lengths for zooms?

In other words, make the reviews much more useful to your readers instead of trying to impress people with technical charts and diagrams!!!

After shooting my mouth off I read the "Image Quality Tests" section of DPR's 5DIII review, which indicated that its out-of-camera jpegs were poor (either mushy or over-sharpened), that good results can be obtained with Adobe Camera Raw, and suggesting appropriate sharpening settings. Having worked all that out, I think it would be better for DPR to process the image samples that way for for lens tests using the 5DIII.
The final output is a jpeg, Basalite, but processed better than the 5DIII is able to do by itself. The problem is not the jpeg format, but the jpegs that come out of the 5DIII.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:32 UTC
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review news story (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Dpreview why do you post jpgs for samples for reviews of lenses?!

It's bad enough for camera reviews but for lens reviews too?!

And how about standardizing some shots that will help the reader see for him or herself the edge to edge performance of the lens at different apertures and focal lengths for zooms?

In other words, make the reviews much more useful to your readers instead of trying to impress people with technical charts and diagrams!!!

Hi Barney,
Sorry to be rude about those sample pictures, but if that's the Canon 5DIII standard sharpening setting, it's far too aggressive, and producing sharpening halos strong enough to make a mess of the detail. One or two sharpening levels down would give a better picture for testing a lens, I think. Another alternative is to use no sharpening at all and allow us to do it to taste, as (only) Lenstip does. This has the big disadvantage of assuming that we understand why the pictures are blurry, have software to sharpen jpegs, and can be bothered to use it. I wish you had used a D800E for the samples!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 26, 2012 at 08:30 UTC
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review news story (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Dpreview why do you post jpgs for samples for reviews of lenses?!

It's bad enough for camera reviews but for lens reviews too?!

And how about standardizing some shots that will help the reader see for him or herself the edge to edge performance of the lens at different apertures and focal lengths for zooms?

In other words, make the reviews much more useful to your readers instead of trying to impress people with technical charts and diagrams!!!

Unsharpened jpegs (as per Lenstip) are OK for lens test samples, but the over-sharpened ones here are horrible and useless.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2012 at 05:09 UTC
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview news story (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixel_peeper: There's no bite to any of the pictures I have seen from the XPro-1, with the same random-array sensor as the X-E1s. They all look as if they've been shot at f22. I put it down to the sensor, which appears to give significantly inferior resolution to equivalent Bayer-array cameras.

If you all think the latest Fuji sensor is sharp, have a look at the last picture on this page.
http://www.sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samplephoto.html
The Fuji idea was a flash in the pan.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2012 at 08:36 UTC
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview news story (278 comments in total)

There's no bite to any of the pictures I have seen from the XPro-1, with the same random-array sensor as the X-E1s. They all look as if they've been shot at f22. I put it down to the sensor, which appears to give significantly inferior resolution to equivalent Bayer-array cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2012 at 04:41 UTC as 12th comment | 12 replies
On Preview:canong1x (1044 comments in total)

Time to ditch this studio scene for something flatter. There is too much depth in it for the thin depth of field of the latest, high-resolution cameras. People are complaining about lack of sharpness when the part of the scene they're looking at is merely out of focus.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 at 04:33 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10