Joined on Feb 21, 2012


Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony Alpha SLT-A68 real-world samples (104 comments in total)

The "edited to taste" images look great - more 'pop' (contrast, sharpness & shadow retention). But it would also be interesting to see if the in-camera jpeg adjustments could nearly accomplish the same effects. I think on the Sonys, shadows are brightened using the 'DRO' parameter, which usually offers Auto, Low, Medium & High. On my Sony I use 'High' DRO most of the time for OOC jpegs, plus one notch up on contrast, sharpness, and/or saturation.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 19:03 UTC as 10th comment
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (380 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Obviously not for sports. But what would happen if they shortened the zoom to 300mm, lens speed was 3.5 - 5.6? Image quality would go up, size, price and weight would go down. 24mm-300mm would cover what most people use, or could reasonably expect from a fixed-lens camera.

A ZS100 perhaps? Not perfect but worth a glance.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 22:07 UTC

It could be my monitor, but to me, the shadowed foliage in the jpeg examples (bird-in-pond and red-hatted-person-on-walkway in particular) look simply like dark brown muck. It should appear as dimly-lit green foliage if the goal is for a more natural appearance.
Often Mr. Keller presented jpegs samples with the D-range or Shadow compensation settings varied from none, medium & high. I encourage DP review to continue to emulate this useful practice. The raw Dynamic Range test is helpful indeed, but including a few jpeg examples would be great too. The multiple-imaged 'mouse-over' feature works well for this. Thanks DPR!

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 20:32 UTC as 92nd comment
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

steve ohlhaber: I think the average person wants something that is small, 24-200mm and a big a sensor as can be managed. The Panasonic zs100 pretty much nails it at a price. I think for people that need more zoom, the Sony HX line has been THE camera to get for years. I am talking about non pros with some money. I have seen people buy the Sony RX due to all the hype, and just hate it due to the small zoom range. 1 camera that can do everything when you only own 1 camera, that is what these are great at. Most people don't have 5 cameras, they want one, and these days, its one that is better than their phone, so it needs to be fairly noticeably better to the average person.

There still isn't really an in betweener. Something cheaper with a sensor between the 1/2.33" and 1". Maybe $500. I would say that would be the best camera for the masses ever, but nobody has made it.

"...Something cheaper with a sensor between the 1/2.33" and 1". Maybe $500...."
A quest of mine too. Not perfect but close (28-300mm, 1/1.7 sensor, $550):
Considered it but I really need 24/25mm. In a year the $650 ZS100 will drop to $500 by Nov '16.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2016 at 03:59 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1086 comments in total)

Looks like a great camera, but not for those who prefer to leave their (sun)glasses on, since it has only 16mm eye releif. Also no built-in convenience flash. Most of the xxD Canons spec 22mm. Fine unit otherwise.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 21:52 UTC as 134th comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

QuietOC: Why is the Canon SL1 included, but not the Sony A58? They are both current models introduced in 2013. I am sure Sony would rather sell A6000s, but the slightly older A58 has some big advantages like IBIS and better lens selection.

Or Sony A68...

Link | Posted on May 9, 2016 at 18:21 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

dszc: GPS!
NONE of these cameras have GPS. To me, that is curious and bordering on the unacceptable.
I suppose there are some who don't care about GPS, and maybe even some who don't want it. But to me, one of the most important features of a "TRAVEL" camera is GPS.
How wonderful it is to go exploring and take pictures of interesting and unknown things, and then come back home, offload into Lightroom, and see and know what and where I was photographing.
Right now I would go out and buy 3 copies of the Panasonic TZ100 for myself and my traveling relatives, IF it had GPS. But without GPS it is of no use to me. Pity.

I too wish more had GPS. Will never sell my Canon S100. The older 1/2.3" Panny and Sony travel zooms have it, and last year's super zoom Nikons. But no 1" or u4/3 have it. I would rather not leave my smartphone on all day to record coordinates, then transfer the data, etc etc.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (284 comments in total)

Nice round-up.
Would have liked to see Canon's G3 X included, but hope to see it in an upcoming enthusiast's Super-Zoom round-up with the new Sony, Nikon & Panasonic SZs. (fwiw: the 'Specifications Compared' link is incorrect on a few pages.)

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 22:36 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

webber15: Put this down in the desert and you'll never find it again ;-)

Perfect for the Kalahari / safari touring, with Thom H.
(hate to admit it - I kinda like the colors)

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

brownie314: I think too little attention is paid to the ooc jpgs. Yes, I know the more experienced among us take the raw files and push them around. But most camera buyers do not and have to live with the jpgs that come out of the camera. That being said, it would be hard for me to recommend the a6000 to anyone because to me the jpgs are so unsatisfying compared to canon and Nikon. The colors are just uninspiring, skin is awful, wb not great many times. Just my 2c.

@ brownie - I rather agree. Though it's sure to be posted elsewhere, OOC canikon jpegs seem to jump a bit better than sony's. Important to me since post/computer work is, well, "work" to me.

I prefer to shoot jpeg, so getting lighting & composition right at the moment is important. That said, I often tweak w/lightroom before public postings or printing.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

davids8560: The message here is essentially what G.A.S. taught me. There are a lot of great cameras which I would seldom use, even if I owned them, simply because they don't fit my lifestyle and/or my needs. I now have a lot of top-rated but mostly idle gear. I find it very amusing and a little embarrassing too that the tiny Panasonic LF-1 with its 28-200 reach and viewfinder is the camera I use the most. I expect the new ZS100 to replace it, despite its expected shortcomings. It's still going to be the best new option for me, because I need the smallest possible form, significant zoom, a viewfinder, and built-in Wi-Fi, and I want whatever model offers the best IQ within those parameters. I do expect other mfrs to respond to the ZS100, so maybe I will wait a bit before ordering one. I guess for now I have settled on calling myself a snap-shooting zoomer, not a real photographer.

Though I have an ILC or 2, my best images (the few I actually print or post) are often from my fixed-lens super zooming cameras, e.g. FZ200. So I'm at least partially in the 'snap-shooting-zoomer' camp, as I suspect many here also (but may not admit it publicly).

Which is a partial testament that cameras have become so excellent in the last several years that the model one chooses is has little effect on technical image quality. (excepting: professional use, bif, sports, video). So ergonomics & aesthetics are now the deciding factors as opposed to low-light, resolution, etc. And one of the theses of this article.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 21:57 UTC
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: I think Fuji needs to concentrate on keeping its size down if it wants to stay in the apsc size format. My main camera is a d810 but I enjoy my x100t, but find its large in size compared to the full frame rx1 or even now similar sized to a full frame q. Since I thought the whole point of apsc to full frame was to keep the size down, I owned the x pro 1 for a short period of time. Found it to be easily replaced by the smaller x100 and now for me I'll probably try the x70 for its size. I believe the apsc sensor will become 110 film or pocket cameras in the future so full kits for smaller sensors will probably be for a much smaller market share. Full frame has a major advantage in DOF, IQ, low light and recovery of blown details. For this reason a pro would not use apsc sensor for anything other than enjoyment in a pocket camera or small walk around camera. Also the reason Sony and Leica have moved to more full frame and less apsc sized sensors for anything outside of portable cameras. I enjoy the Fuji cameras but think the need to continue to shrink their size if they want to stay relevant with the new rx1rII and cameras like that coming out. Also the x pro 2 would be of interest to me as a nastalgic camera if it were priced appropriately for an apsc sized sensor, there are too many full frame cameras in that price point or even apsc sized leicas. If Fuji wants more success in the us it needs to offer products that are priced closer to their competition.

@Alex - indeed true, well stated. However since many pro's livelyhoods depend on absolute technical excellence, FF will be with us for the foreseeable future.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 20:20 UTC
On article Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar Matias: I have another suggestion for you (Fujifilm) -- make an XT-1 model with a SQUARE sensor that utilizes the whole image circle of your lovely APS-C lenses...

APS-C sensors are 23.6 x 15.6 mm. Going square would up the sensor size to 23.6 x 23.6 mm, which is essentially the same vertical as full-frame (36 x 24 mm). You’d get the same look as FF, using lighter APS-C lenses.

Added bonus... While the vertical is the same as FF, the sensor area is almost 36% smaller -- a huge savings in sensor cost.

Call it the SX-1 and position it as the top model in the X-series range of cameras. You'd have a full-frame camera that’s less expensive to manufacture than every other FF camera, with the additional cachet of a square sensor, AND without having to start over with a whole new range of lenses.


Indeed it's 20x20mm to fit a standard APS-C image circle. But with some correction for vignetting and if one can tolerate some corner distortion, a 23.6x23.6mm sensor could be interesting. It's diagonal is ~28.3mm.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 04:37 UTC
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Interesting. They have 11-16mm/2,8; 11-20mm/2,8, and now 14-20mm/2.
I believe I'm satisfied with my 11-16mm Pro DX II.

Focal range does seem redundant and limited. Though perhaps it's perfectly suited for hand-held natural-light indoor real estate work, and dawn/dusk landscapes.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2016 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: The very short "open" period means they either have someone picked out for the job already (but are required to advertise) or they expect to get a truck load of applicants.

Unfortunately, having some experience with how the Feds hire through USAJOBS, it'll probably go to someone's friend and they already have a name in mind. I could be wrong, though.

Exact same situation is true for Nat'l Forest Service jobs, so I hear from a current FS employee.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 01:04 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

epx141: I will consider a mirrorless when it does not cost 4x the price of the equivalent DSLR and it mounts Nikon F lenses.

@impulses- All true except u4/3 has many more primes than CaNikon's APS-C, DX offerings.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 02:11 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Long Zoom Compacts (71 comments in total)

Took my HX90V on a trip in some crowded areas and it was perfect casual camera to have in the pocket, shirt pocket or jacket pocket. Only slight downside to me is the somewhat fiddly viewfinder, which wants to be opened and closed everytime it goes in the pocket and out. And it's not too easy tracking moving objects at 30x (let alone 60x or 80x !) with most motorized zoom cameras. Regarding low light performance the review pretty much says it. All said though, a fine little camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 00:01 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

G3User: Are these composites? If so, that should be stated right away in the article with the photos. I shouldn't have to poke around to find out that these are fake photos. If they are, what a desperate attempt for a gimmick. I would think that brides would be disappointed that he does these things to their photos.

My guess is the majority are.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2015 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

Bram de Mooij: Out of curiosity and as a reaction to some reviews I bought this lens, but I returned it the same week I bought it. Some talk here about elitism, but in my opinion you are better off with some of the compact cameras that cost us much as this lens. For instance the Stylus 1. Sharpness was not there and the purple fringing was the worst I have ever seen. Maybe I had a bad copy, but this was really the last APS-C or FF superzoom lens that I tried.

An RX10 or FZ1000 are indeed good alternatives, though they sacrifice some dynamic range and maybe depth-of-field, compared to using an APS-C camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

ijustloveshooting: ''Sony version will not have image stabilisation'' wtf?
then make the price quite cheaper!

I'm guessing the price is the same simply because the Sony A version is but small fraction of their overall sales, with most (~85%?) going to canon/nikon users.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 19:12 UTC
Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »