Light theme [beta]
We're testing a lighter alternative to the regular DPReview theme. Both options will stay.
For more information, click here. Don't forget to leave some feedback.

PowerG9atBlackForest

Lives in Germany Germany
Works as a Pensioner
Joined on Apr 10, 2008
About me:

Canon G9
Olympus E-PM2, E-PL7, P12-35, O45, O60, O75, O40-150, O8

Comments

Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

cgarrard: Good job Richard, seriously. Now I've had stinging nettles once in my life and I'll never forget the experience. To think of drinking it down...wow! I know I know, they don't sting you on the inside, but just a thought.

Anywho, enjoyed the piece quite a bit. I like the simple and subdued nature of the video and think it looks good to me (but im not pro at video either), sometimes less is more!

-Carl

I know of stinging nettles tea and it is very refreshing and actually very healthy. My wife makes it. Says someone from Germany.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 20:14 UTC

Works with Adobe Photoshop v7 as well, probably v6.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2016 at 14:18 UTC as 89th comment
On article How to: iFixit disassembles the Fujifilm X100T (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: I'm putting on my nerdy pedantic glasses now...

How can a spring "save a bit of battery life"? It doesn't give you free energy. The motor working one-way will need more power to compress the spring, then if it wasn't there at all. That energy is then released when the lens needs to move the other way.

Someone with more than my Physics GCSE qualification can tell us whether storing energy like this is much less efficient than simply driving the lens the other way with a motor...

SCIENCE!

As the spring load is permanent is it safe to assume that the motor will need a permanent electric current to compensate for the spring load? Unless the motor without an electric current will be blocked mechanically. But then again a considerable break-off force would be needed to free the lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 17:10 UTC
On article SLR Magic announces anamorphic lenses for filmmakers (33 comments in total)

Given the new lenses would exist, will special projector lenses follow or will these lenses in reverse be able to serve as projector lenses as well?

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 21:28 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (47 comments in total)
In reply to:

KLO82: Why don't you make an option to "like" the features/ articles? Just like the way we "like" the comments.

Because it wouldn't matter? DPR write their features/articles because they reflect what they think.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:25 UTC
In reply to:

Digitalis32: These lenses will never outlive the true immortals: pentax takumars.

The bombs will fall and the earth will be scorched: Keith Richards, three takumars a K1000, and five cockroaches will be all that is left.

Sorry for Keith

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 12:13 UTC

Quoting from the article itself: "The downside to the design is barrel distortion".
Hey, what about the other remaining optical aberrations? There is no such thing as a silver bullet.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 21:45 UTC as 16th comment
On article Pride and joy: shooting the Olympus PEN-F in Austin (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: Olympus dials are so nice to use, you turn them even when the camera is off - sad but true.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one disliking the fully articulated screens. It's a deal breaker for me.

Weather sealing is expected on all cameras nowadays, as is dual AF (PDAF/CDAF).

We are making progress, new cameras have only about 2-3 serious omissions nowadays, unless it's a Sony :-)

"Weather sealing is expected on all cameras nowadays..."
Actually, it is safe to say that all cameras nowadays, resp. their sensors, are well protected against stray light; well, more or less.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 13:11 UTC
On article Hell on Earth: Shooting in the Danakil Depression (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Der Steppenwolf: There are a lot featured photographers here that have ONE thing in common.
Could you guess what it is ?
A tip, it's got NOTHING to do with photography at all.
DPR has changed. A lot. To the worse.

At Den Steppenwolf:
Don't consider yourself a philosopher and just utter a few vague words expecting then everybody as wise as you to understand them at first glance.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Hey boys, I am an amateur having joined dpreview in 2008 and now shooting with Olympus MFT cameras. I could not resist having a curious side-look at your new Nikon D5 as it popped up here. You are not serious, are you? This is what they build our brick houses from at home ;-)

At LJ - Eljot: I simply didn't notice it before. May be because I have been used to MFT sizes since a couple of years not having payed attention to the same degree to professional C&N cameras since then. Surprises always come unexpectedly.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 12:06 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Hey boys, I am an amateur having joined dpreview in 2008 and now shooting with Olympus MFT cameras. I could not resist having a curious side-look at your new Nikon D5 as it popped up here. You are not serious, are you? This is what they build our brick houses from at home ;-)

Raghav, I consider your posting as inappropriate.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 16:46 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Hey boys, I am an amateur having joined dpreview in 2008 and now shooting with Olympus MFT cameras. I could not resist having a curious side-look at your new Nikon D5 as it popped up here. You are not serious, are you? This is what they build our brick houses from at home ;-)

well roared, lion!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 22:10 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Hey boys, I am an amateur having joined dpreview in 2008 and now shooting with Olympus MFT cameras. I could not resist having a curious side-look at your new Nikon D5 as it popped up here. You are not serious, are you? This is what they build our brick houses from at home ;-)

Rishi, no, not really. It just came as a shock to me simply because from my past ten years or so I wasn't prepared to be confronted with cameras of that size. However, I do appreciate that Pros will need that. ;-) I didn't want to offend anyone.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 21:36 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (408 comments in total)

Hey boys, I am an amateur having joined dpreview in 2008 and now shooting with Olympus MFT cameras. I could not resist having a curious side-look at your new Nikon D5 as it popped up here. You are not serious, are you? This is what they build our brick houses from at home ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 21:25 UTC as 88th comment | 9 replies
On article Happy Holidays from dpreview! (119 comments in total)

Nadolig Llawen a Blwddyn Newydd Dda! as they say yngh Nghymru (in Wales)

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2015 at 21:16 UTC as 36th comment

A very well made, interesting article covering the essentials. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2015 at 10:21 UTC as 62nd comment

No mention of CRI values - press releases never do and dpr doesn't care. By the way: CRI >93, Manfrotto says.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2015 at 11:32 UTC as 7th comment
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: "...Sensor size plays a large part in determining the image quality a camera is ultimately capable of and, in general, the larger a camera's sensor, the better the image quality..."

What is written like a rock solid statement and probably is meant as such, under the light of reality, has to be considered as a very private opinion of the three authors - I can't believe Richard is amongst them. At least, he should know better.

@ObelixCMM: Well actually I did and I am doing it all the time. There are two issues mixed here:

1. Noise, admittedly is more a problem in small sensors. It is also more a problem with ISO values. The threshold for it varies with size of sensors (see above) and with the way signals are processed. Noise is only one point when discussing image quality.

2. ISO, put two cameras with different sizes of sensors side-by-side to capture the same object; given an identical ISO value, you will find that they both will use the same value of exposure (EV) for this shot.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 08:40 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: "...Sensor size plays a large part in determining the image quality a camera is ultimately capable of and, in general, the larger a camera's sensor, the better the image quality..."

What is written like a rock solid statement and probably is meant as such, under the light of reality, has to be considered as a very private opinion of the three authors - I can't believe Richard is amongst them. At least, he should know better.

Sorry ObelixCMM ;), I still think you are wrong when you wrote "Exposure stays the same because ISO 100 on M4/3 is same as ISO 200 on APS-C and ISO 400 on FF..."

Dr_Jon just stated "With the same f-stop any size lens gets the same light per unit area...if you select ISO 100 the exposure will work out regardless of camera...".

This must be correct because the amount of light/photons per unit area remains the same regardless of the sensor size.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 17:38 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: "...Sensor size plays a large part in determining the image quality a camera is ultimately capable of and, in general, the larger a camera's sensor, the better the image quality..."

What is written like a rock solid statement and probably is meant as such, under the light of reality, has to be considered as a very private opinion of the three authors - I can't believe Richard is amongst them. At least, he should know better.

"...About half the photons gives about sqrt(2) or 40% more noise relative to signal. Which will massively dominate the sensor noise almost everywhere..."

So far I have been under the impression that the effect of photons not converted to electrons producing noise was locally restricted, i.e. to the very loci where they actually hit the sensor.

If you are right in that this is a global effect acting across the sensor I have to admit that a larger sensor will benefit from lower noise compared to a smaller sensor.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 16:23 UTC
Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »