PIX 2015
PeterTom

PeterTom

Lives in Slovak Republic Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Works as a programmer and part time university teacher
Joined on Apr 21, 2006
About me:

I used film SLRs since 1985.
Currently I use Canon 350D, Tamron 18-200, Canon 10-22, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2.
I mainly shot family and vacations.

Comments

Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Boky: focus micro-adjustment?

That's my question, too.
But I do not think that Canon has put it there. In fact it is the only point that would distinguish this model from 70D...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 10:22 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 flips for selfies article (395 comments in total)
In reply to:

PeterTom: I do not shoot (many) selfies, but the flipping screen may be useful also for other purposes. It would be twice more useful (IMO) if it would not only flip but also rotate (swivel is the right word? the descriptions on DPReview name it "fully articulated").
I shot many pictures in portrait orientation and many times I would like to have them shot easily from waist level or ground level without the need of doing additional gymnastics (with my current Canon Rebel).

But many m4/3 cameras have only flip screen.
Actually, it seems that there the only m/4 cameras with "fully articulated" screen are the SLR-sized GH4 and G6 (and when I look for m4/3 I want to downsize my equipment).
Why m4/3 cameras tend ignore the portrait orientation (how many of the current)?
Would it be so much more complicated to make, for example, this screen fully articulated?

@Just Ed
My old Rebel (450D) has no tilt screen either.
So I must either use the optical viewfinder (from a squatting position) or just shoot "blindly" (from ground level) and hope for a usable result.

I am considering modernizing my gear already for a year or two.
I am considering both APS-C Canon DSLRs (700D or 70D at this moment - both have fully articulated screens) and m4/3 (Because I would like to have a smaller/lighter camera system that offers reasonably fast and reasonably priced wide angle primes).

The lack of fully articulated screens on virtually all m4/3 cameras (except the two that are not much smaller than an APS-C DSLR) is one point that keeps me from making the decision in favor of m4/3. And when looking at GF7 I find it ridiculous why they did not make the small extra step - allow the screen to rotate on its hinge.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 16:23 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 flips for selfies article (395 comments in total)

I do not shoot (many) selfies, but the flipping screen may be useful also for other purposes. It would be twice more useful (IMO) if it would not only flip but also rotate (swivel is the right word? the descriptions on DPReview name it "fully articulated").
I shot many pictures in portrait orientation and many times I would like to have them shot easily from waist level or ground level without the need of doing additional gymnastics (with my current Canon Rebel).

But many m4/3 cameras have only flip screen.
Actually, it seems that there the only m/4 cameras with "fully articulated" screen are the SLR-sized GH4 and G6 (and when I look for m4/3 I want to downsize my equipment).
Why m4/3 cameras tend ignore the portrait orientation (how many of the current)?
Would it be so much more complicated to make, for example, this screen fully articulated?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 14:40 UTC as 82nd comment | 5 replies

I have been waiting for reasonably fast wide angle prime EF-S lenses for about 5 years.

So now we have one. Do we?
1. It is just so-so inside the "wide" category. 24mm is a strange FL for aps-c. 22mm would be better (or 17 or 15).
2. Unfortunately it is also not "reasonably fast". For me "reasonably fast" starts at 2.0 in this FL.

I do not care about "pancakes". I really dreamed about a 22mm f/2 EF-S lens that would be smaller and lighter than the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 (the only other fast prime at this FL).
My Tamron is f/3.5 till 27mm, so why should I buy this lens?

I know that the flange focal distance is a technical problem for wideangles on DSLRs.
But wasn't it the idea behind EF-S that it can help to bring the rear element of the lens a few millimeters closer to the sensor?

I do not want to go fullframe. And it seems that Canon now says: "do not wait anymore, we will not make it". Any other options? Maybe the big and heavy Sigma 18-35/1.8, maybe switching to to Olympus MFT...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 23:51 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

OldDigiman: Say what? Plug iPhone into charging cable, plug other end of charging cable into computer, on computer navigate to phone's DCIM folder, copy files. Free.

I do not own an iPhone, so I would like to ask: does it work with any other files than multimedia ones (pictures and videos)? Because DCIM is meant only for these kinds of files...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Kim Letkeman: Hmmm ... I dumped Apple for Android years ago and I simply use DropBox to get automated camera uploads that appear on my machine at home pretty much as soon as the images are shot. Does that really not work on Apple iPhones? Note the price, too: $0

The price just seems to be $0.
By using any cloud solution you expose your files potentially to many people for investigating and data mining of any kind. So you pay with your data.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 17:00 UTC
On Rumors hint at pair of new Canon lenses article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

macjonny1: Canon, no one cares about these boring lenses. Maybe do something innovative instead of a MK II version of a lens that is just fine the way it is. Spend your resources getting out of the obsolescence that you seem to be heading at light speed.

@Richard
For me 4mm and 2/3 stop is quite a big difference.
IS is seldom needed for stills with an UWA (at 10mm I can regularly use 1/15 of second with no noticeable blur).
And if it will be the same price (which was crazily high for me when I bought the 10-22 in 2005) then I would opt for 10-22 without thinking.

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2014 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: What a refreshing feeling to see a photography awards event devoid of war photos, conflict dramas, human atrocities, suffering and unhappiness.

Call it whatever you like, Sony has got it right.

.

SirSeth: Click the "See more images" link and you will see the whole series.
Maybe DPreview could rename it to "See the whole series"...

It is really needed to see the whole series before judging.
I looked at number 1 and I thought: "Well, it's not a bad family snapshot, but why is it the the winner?".

Then after seeing the whole series I am somewhat puzzled.
I do not like that series at all.
My photographic reason is that those seems to be arranged shots with models (I doubt that the author followed the couple for several years and that she was present at the very moment when the police was taking the man, or am I wrong?).
So why is it "contemporary issues" and not "campaign"?
From human point of view I do not like the series because it promotes too much the feminist point of view of the problem.

But for some other photos the complete series are better than than the single picture chosen by DPreview.

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2014 at 15:37 UTC
On Toshiba unveils UHS-II Class 3 microSD memory cards article (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: This makes the size of CF cards look very obsolete.

Until you drop them on the grass :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: A Samsung S4 has a 9.88 watt-hour battery. That's 35568 watt-seconds. To charge that in 26 seconds at 90% efficiency requires 1520W.

Just what everybody wants, a phone that has a 30-pound, $1000 charger that requires exclusive use of a domestic circuit, like a refrigerator does.

Oh, and the phone is a low voltage device. 1520W at 5V is just over 300A. Anyone know a 300A DC connector that's smaller than a cell phone?

Every year or two for the last 12 years, dpReview has ran a 30-second charging battery story. It's sort of the ultimate solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Battery technology far outstrips charger technology. 5-10 watt chargers are a practical size, weight, and cost, and 1-2 hours is an acceptable charging time to get that size and weight of a charger.

And therefore you can read at the end of the article:
"...the smartphone could then be operated for two to three hours with that charge."
So it has not the same capacity as the original battery. And will probably never have it. Or it will need to charge (quite a bit) longer.
But until that becomes obvious to all the startup will have enough money from people who have no idea about physics.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 11:30 UTC
On Exposing another side of Sochi article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank C.: Sochi is one of Russia's resort towns and we are shown pictures like this, not really the glit and glamour we are accustomed to in the west. But Russia barely has a national debt, not the nearly the 18 trillion of the US, so it's unfair to make comparisons. I wonder how things would look if they went on a spending spree and threw some money around. That picture of the cook with the fat electrical wire hanging on the wall behind has a lot of character, Russia's past can be seen right there. I enjoyed this series of pictures and honestly didn't expect anything different.

qartlo:
At first glance it seemed to me that you were confusing Sochi with Sukhumi (I liked Sukhumi when I was there in 1974 for a half day trip as a child, but I know that nowadays it is quite destroyed).
Then I tried to "learn the truth" and I found the information that Sochi has been taken by Russians - but not 20 years ago. It was in 1829 i.e. 185 years ago. So saying "Sochi is occupied by Russia" is approximately as true as saying "California is occupied by the USA".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2014 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: So it has the size disadvantage of a DSLR, and the lack of fast PDAF for a mirrorless...
can't people just get a grip?

NowHearThis:

I think that 102 x 58 x 38 mm is incorrect in the specs.
If you look at the preview (here on DPReview) then there is 128mm width stated inside the top picture on the third page.
And the size comparison on the fourth page clearly shows that it is wider that the 100D. In fact it is the widest from the three cameras that you listed.

So I would say that it is too big for mirrorless.
On the other hand, for $400 it will surely find its customers...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 17:01 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (681 comments in total)

There seems to be a mistake in the specifications.
It says:
Dimensions: 102 x 58 x 38 mm

But then the red numbers in the picture at the top of the third page shows width 128mm and height 91mm.
And the comparison picture on the fourth page, when compared with Canon 100D shows that it is wider than Canon (so 128mm seems to be the real value because Canon is 117mm), but a bit lower (so I am confused because according to dpreview Canon is 91mm tall, too, but the difference in the picture is not as big as 58 vs. 91, IMO).

DPreview, please try to measure once more :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 16:54 UTC as 124th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: The EOS M is sadly in "No Man's Land" right now...

It has the same fate as the Nikon "1" system.

Both Canon and Nikon have just over saturated the Market Segment and they have just sailed right into the Sargaso Sea.

.

The same fate?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50562689

Nikon 1 J1 rank 1
EOS M rank 15 with more than five times less "Sales share".

I know, it's Japan only. But both companies in your "comparison" are Japanese, so why not look at their domestic market share?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 09:51 UTC
On Olympus PEN Lite E-PL5 & PEN Mini E-PM2 preview (152 comments in total)

Orientation sensor: No

Isn't that weird nowadays?
Well, I come from DSLRs and I seek for something smaller, I would prefer in-body IS, but this single thing discourages me from Olympus.

If I understand well, it means that I cannot show the JPEGs right from the cameras SD card on my TV, or computer... Do I need to edit 50% (sometimes even more) of the pictures only to show them properly? Or I miss something and this is not needed?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 20:30 UTC as 49th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Baczek: what this video doesn't show is focus accuracy. i don't care how fast PDAF focuses if the picture comes out all soft. hybrid AF is MUCH more accurate with older lenses like the 50 1.8.

That's exactly my point, too.

I would be glad to see a comparison of accuracy PDAF vs. CDAF in low light.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 21:00 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D3200 in-depth Review article (358 comments in total)
In reply to:

carlo trevisan: I don't get the low score as I didn't get the D3100 low score.
(I own a D3100 myself)
Nex7, as a D3200, is not poketable... So why should I spend more money on a Nex7? Where is IQ advantage?
In my opinion, Dpreview should write it in the D3200 cons list: "Mirrorless is smart and cool, DSRL is old tech (-5 score)"

If I remember well, the scores are always relative to the category of the camera.
So you cannot compare them across categories.
If nex7 has a higher score then it means that Newx7 has a "better position" within its category (mirrorless) than D3200 has in its category (entry-level DSLR).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 11:40 UTC
In reply to:

CarVac: 1920x810 at 24fps??? What on earth?

to Cy Cheze:

I do not know about Samsung, but Philips is producing 21:9 TVs:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/Philips-Cinema-21-9-56PFL9954H-56in-LCD-TV_TV_review

21/9 = 2.33
Not equal to 1.39, but quite close.

I just hope that it will not be the next standard for PC and notebook displays...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

PeterTom: So the 60mm not-so-fast macro lens will be the longest prime...
For me 55mm/1.4 or 1.8, 85mm/1.8 or 2.0 and 100mm or 105mm/2.0 are missing in the line.

90mm/2.4 could be good for portraits.
My usage of fast primes is primarily for low light (available light) family/travel/street photos and candids.
And for that 2.4 is not fast enough and 60mm is not long enough.

I think that the reason to exclude (for now?) the longer lenses is the construction of the optical viewfinder, which cannot zoom in and therefore the frame projected into the viewfinder for a longer lens would be tiny.
So longer lenses may be available only on X-PRO2 (or will it be Y-PRO1a? :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 13:19 UTC

So the 60mm not-so-fast macro lens will be the longest prime...
For me 55mm/1.4 or 1.8, 85mm/1.8 or 2.0 and 100mm or 105mm/2.0 are missing in the line.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 12:29 UTC as 35th comment | 6 replies
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »