FreeRadical009

FreeRadical009

Joined on Jan 7, 2011

Comments

Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
In reply to:

Prognathous: It's sad to see how Sony ruined the best hot-shoe implementation and replaced it with this seemingly-standard-but-not-really pos.

@Antonio Rojilla:

Maybe the backlash is happening because Sony is just bowing down to the videographers instead of photographers and they got rid of a perfectly working shoe, which is much easier and quicker to set than the ISO one?

As usual, Sony reached the point where their standard was accepted and supported and then they say "You know what? Change of plans, we're going back to Kansas"

The 60 and 43M flashes are incompatible with anything but the most recent cameras. Yeah, you could use the flimsy wimsy adapter, but that's just more weight on the camera, plus another surface which I REALLY doubt will be able to handle the weight of the F56, F58 and F60 flashes.

Try setting an A77 with a F60 flash in portrait orientation with a Beercan mounted on a tripod and tell me if you'd feel safe to let the weight of the flash rest on a tiny damn adapter that may break off at any second when you could have used the camera hotshoe to begin with, which is far more resistant.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:51 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: Finally, they replaced the worst lens in their telephoto line-up. I am getting this one no matter what.

@leebird: For the record, I was meaning at the habit of jumping around systems every release just to gain marginal improvements in image quality, spending thousands of dollars in the process instead of developing technique and sensibility in their photography. That's it.

I'm not a Nikon user, so I really can't comment on this release, I suppose it's a good thing for Nikon's userbase but they'll know better.

Peace out...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: Finally, they replaced the worst lens in their telephoto line-up. I am getting this one no matter what.

@Octane: You'd be surprised the kind of things some people do with their money and cameras in the name of "image quality"...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 06:36 UTC

@Olivier from DxO Labs:

I just got two questions:

1) Have DxO Labs finally fixed the issue with Optics Pro 8 that means it crashes on me every single time I need to process more than 20 pictures.

Version 8 crash way more frequently than V7 ever did.

2) Could you please forward to the development team my personal request to enable the option to disable the automatic application of the Smart Lightning option?

While it does work on pictures that are over or underexposed, on shots properly exposed, it just makes colors dull and dims the exposure when there is no need for it. I got to be struggling with this frequently and takes time I need to correct the pictures.

I'm not against the function, I just want to enable it on only certain shots, not all of them.

Thank you!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2012 at 07:24 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies

Thank you for your work and dedication, Mr. Bryce Bayer.

You are one of the people that everyone here owes to for the technology you developed which helps us create our work everyday.

Me being a son of digital photography, owe you a lot.

Thank you, sir. May you rest in peace.

We will put your work into good use and make you proud. We shall carry the torch from here on out.

My condolonces to the Bayer family.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2012 at 09:55 UTC as 17th comment
On DxO Labs unveils Optics Pro 8 with Smart Lighting article (35 comments in total)

Having used Optics Pro 7 for almost a year and gotten excellent results with it, I'm definetely looking forward to V8. I just hope they fixed the program's habit of crashing every now and then when processing pictures.

I just wonder, taking in account that LR4 is cheaper than DxO and it doesn't come in two versions (but one covers all cameras), how does that affect Optics Pro's sales in general?

If I could only get a lens profile for my Minolta 35-70mm f/4, all my lenses would be covered and I'd be delighted.

Cheers :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 21:13 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

FreeRadical009: @DxO Labs:

Please create the function to force the use of third party lens/camera modules for Sony DSLRs. This would override the problem of the incomplete or confusing EXIF lens information for the program and would allow Sony users to use third party lenses with your program instead of not being able to. A lot of us use third party lenses and being limited to only Sony and Minolta lenses is annoying.

Excellent news!

Will the future combinations cover all the Sony DSLR models you currently support?

Thanks for your reply!

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 22:09 UTC

@DxO Labs:

Please create the function to force the use of third party lens/camera modules for Sony DSLRs. This would override the problem of the incomplete or confusing EXIF lens information for the program and would allow Sony users to use third party lenses with your program instead of not being able to. A lot of us use third party lenses and being limited to only Sony and Minolta lenses is annoying.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 20:53 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies

Well, at least Sony wasn't stupid enough to remove the screw drive focusing motor in this model, as it was rumored some months ago.

That's all I was looking forward to confirm. That they weren't going to pull a "Nikon-says-suck-it-newbies" on us.

Moving on.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 09:11 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

orfeas76: I cannot find Nikon D800 in their supported models

@HowaboutRAW:

Considering that DxO Optics has a LOT more modules for Nikon than Sony, I don't know what are you talking about. They are most likely generating modules out of all the lenses they support in Nikon mount.

I'd be thrilled if they had Sony as a higher priority, but Nikon will always come first.

So relax, Nikon D800 support will come soon.

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2012 at 07:31 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

FreeRadical009: I wonder how does the fact that Olympus' true ISO values differ greatly from the actual, standardized ISO values vis-a-vis High ISO results shown in this review, affect the final outcome.

The high ISO shots against the Sonys do look promising, but if it's not the true high ISO they claim it is, then I got to wonder if the sensor is really that good at all.

It's like comparing how much kilometers you get out of a liter of gasoline between two cars, except that with one, you take off everything that adds weight and you end up with a bare bones car, while on the other one, you keep the standard equipment.

Obviously the bare bones will give better performance because of the reduced weight, but that doesn't mean it will perform that good with the standard equipment on.

I'm not making this up, you can find this in DxO's site.

@Andy: Thank you for that explanation, that makes a lot of sense and clears up the confusion I've been having.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 20:23 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

FreeRadical009: I wonder how does the fact that Olympus' true ISO values differ greatly from the actual, standardized ISO values vis-a-vis High ISO results shown in this review, affect the final outcome.

The high ISO shots against the Sonys do look promising, but if it's not the true high ISO they claim it is, then I got to wonder if the sensor is really that good at all.

It's like comparing how much kilometers you get out of a liter of gasoline between two cars, except that with one, you take off everything that adds weight and you end up with a bare bones car, while on the other one, you keep the standard equipment.

Obviously the bare bones will give better performance because of the reduced weight, but that doesn't mean it will perform that good with the standard equipment on.

I'm not making this up, you can find this in DxO's site.

Fair enough.

I'm not trying to minimize Olympus' work and the things they got down right, just wondering if that difference didn't affect the real picture.

If it doesn't, then Olympus did a great job with the camera. Kudos.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 14:43 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)

I wonder how does the fact that Olympus' true ISO values differ greatly from the actual, standardized ISO values vis-a-vis High ISO results shown in this review, affect the final outcome.

The high ISO shots against the Sonys do look promising, but if it's not the true high ISO they claim it is, then I got to wonder if the sensor is really that good at all.

It's like comparing how much kilometers you get out of a liter of gasoline between two cars, except that with one, you take off everything that adds weight and you end up with a bare bones car, while on the other one, you keep the standard equipment.

Obviously the bare bones will give better performance because of the reduced weight, but that doesn't mean it will perform that good with the standard equipment on.

I'm not making this up, you can find this in DxO's site.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 14:11 UTC as 103rd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

IcyVeins: Why are cine lenses measured in T stops and regular lenses in f stops?

The difference between an F and T stop is that F stop does not take in account the light that will be absorbed by the glass itself. Despite having the same F stop, a big zoom lens will not transmit the same light as a small prime lens that doesn't have a lot of glass elements in it, like a zoom lens does.

In cinema lenses, the T stop is the actual value of how much light will reach the film or sensor. These are consistent between lenses regardless of the focal length. They avoid the differences in exposure values when filming, whereas a photography lens can transmit less light despite having a big F stop number.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2012 at 20:39 UTC

Still waiting for DxO to allow us to force the use of specific modules on our pictures. That way they could develop and allow the use of third party lenses on Sony cameras despite the problem with the EXIF in the RAW files.

That's something we need NOW.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2012 at 20:51 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

FreeRadical009: Just to make sure, this update also works for the plugin version for DxO Optics, right? The capabilities that the program as a stand alone application now has, are also upgraded for the plugin versions?

@Axel from DxO Labs:

Thanks for clearing that up. I did see DxO Optics found a new update today and I just installed it, but I suppose it was to fix other issues.

Two questions: a) Will you publicly announce when the Optics Pro plugin of FilmPack is updated? and b) Any chance you can tell me when the module for the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 will be released for download?

Thanks!

@Ole Moller: It's V3.2, the file you download shows 3.4, but once installed it says V3.2. Probably displays the build number or it's a typo.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2012 at 10:41 UTC

Just to make sure, this update also works for the plugin version for DxO Optics, right? The capabilities that the program as a stand alone application now has, are also upgraded for the plugin versions?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2012 at 09:40 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Sosua: Damn, pretty sweet pocket camera.

Now if this was a CSC things would be rocking - hopefully Sigma sell the SD1 sensor to Sony or something and they can slap it in an NEX7

I think that it will be a problem, since the NEX mount it's designed for APS-C sized sensors and the Foveon are much smaller than that.

In any case, they should sell the technology to Sony, but if I recall correctly, Sony has been working on sensor technology similar to Foveon for some time now, maybe in a few years will see such a sensor on the Alphas and NEXes.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 07:28 UTC

If it took Sigma this long to come to their senses, then I doubt this camera will make any impact on the photographic gear world. It will actually be remembered as an exercise of everything you shouldn't do when launching a product, especially when you are better known for making lenses and other accessories and not cameras.

Too bad, because it has interesting specs, but Sigma can't pretend to be a Leica-sized company and ask for Nikon top-of-the-line prices.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 07:25 UTC as 88th comment
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19