aliquis

aliquis

Joined on May 13, 2010

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

latifron: Dpreview, this is too generous rating this om-d for 80%. This camera does not perform well not even comparable to nex 5n and others Frankly, Om-d has good design, speed and built is nice but picutre quality is not GOOD!!.. There is no way for SMALL sensor can beat larger sensor( nex5n, K1, Fuji xpro1, nex7).

I tested this camera, and what i find is bad high iso( usable until iso 800), bad color rendition and iQ; even epl1 has better color rendition.

thanks

thewhitehawk:
> "I've been hearing the "small-sensor" excuse for years, and early on when the first Digital Photography cameras came along, a bigger sensor did make a significant difference in the quality of images, but the same can't be said for modern equipment.

Not all cellphones take horrible photos anymore, and that wasn't true a few years ago. Not all small-engine cars perform significantly worse than large ones, and the same can be said for large car's fuel economy."

wow, car analogy ;)

Anyway, the Nokia 808 got a 1/1.2" sensor size so close to the Nikon 1 so it's not that weird their image quality isn't much worse... Depending on what you compare to :)

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:49 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

latifron: Dpreview, this is too generous rating this om-d for 80%. This camera does not perform well not even comparable to nex 5n and others Frankly, Om-d has good design, speed and built is nice but picutre quality is not GOOD!!.. There is no way for SMALL sensor can beat larger sensor( nex5n, K1, Fuji xpro1, nex7).

I tested this camera, and what i find is bad high iso( usable until iso 800), bad color rendition and iQ; even epl1 has better color rendition.

thanks

Technology improves so of course there's ways. Over time / at the same technology generation I would expect a bigger sensor to perform better than a smaller one though.

My biggest issue with four thirds is the DOF not the image quality though.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:46 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

guyfawkes: Up until now the main advantage of 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds cameras has been their smaller physical size, let down by sensors that weren't performing along with the best. This dpreview has shown that Olympus has finally arrived at a product that one can safely consider along with the likes of APS-C, and on its own merits and not feel one has to make excuses for it.

Were I at the point of buying my next camera, I feel this would figure very highly on my short list at this price point. Is it perfect? No, but then that camera has yet to come about. Could I criticise aspects of it? Possibly, but what is the point of being an armchair critic as I am not on the cusp of purchase, and before being critical surely one has to use it for a while?

Personally, as an ex-Olympus user, WA8080 and E-500, I am pleased that they can now compete on equal terms as regards imaging qualities. The satisfaction I gained from this review was that it didn't wipe the floor with my 5N!

But that advantage doesn't exist any more with APS-C cameras being as small.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:43 UTC
On Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review article (577 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: Look at the quality comparisons, NEX-7 is worse, while given higher score in the final scoring on this matter. Look here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/16
At the bottom of the page, "Raw noise (ACR 6.7 Beta, noise reduction set to zero)", set ISO to 12800. The picture for NEX-7 is not even visible behind the noise anymore, while E-M5 is still pretty good. Yet Sony gets higher "Low light high ISO performance" rating - what is up with that?

Now look here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/18
"Dynamic range comparison"

It is indicated that E-M5 has wider DR than NEX-7, by 2/3 of EV. Yet Sony gets higher "Image quality (jpeg)" rating - what is up with that?

NEX-7 gets so much higher "movie mode" score, why, because it cannot shoot anything higher than 1440 x 1080, 12 mbps in MP4 (the rest only in the inconvenient AVCHD) and overheats? Aperture/shutter control in the middle of shooting is barely compensates for the lack of proper file format for high-quality video.

So it doesn't have aperture control while filming?

That suck.

I hate how they cripple cameras / don't give all the options.

Same go for the X-pro1.

I also hate all the phototards who complain about having a video button or how good video performance for whatever reason make the camera worse for them.

Personally I want a good camera. For both. That mean good AF, able to use AF even in low light, preferably shallow DOF and good video mode. The wider selection of lenses the better.

It also suck that everyone make their own mount for all these mirror-less cameras instead of one generic one.

I'd probably bought the Samsung or Sony ones if all the companies wasn't so retarded.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:42 UTC
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: It looks as though the NEX system can't provide a fast lens unless it is also rather big. If the E50mm f/1.8 sample is any indication, a 35mm or wider lens with f/1.8 would be very big. Both the 200mm f/6.3 lenses are too slow for sports at the long end, except maybe with the ISO juiced up.

But is it true? Flange distance doesn't matter? Is it just a function of design within the lens?

I have no idea but it's not the case that say some lenses design for leica or same mount cameras are smaller than say canon mount cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

ecm: The price is disappointing, but it's competition is not the D5100 or T3i, or even the enthusiast dSLRs, but rather Leica's digital rangefinder offerings. The body price is comparable to the low-end pro dSLR's (7D, D7000) which no doubt take better photos, in a more competent fashion.

But.... A POCKETABLE, INCONSPICUOUS, and SILENT camera that takes magazine quality (if not art gallery quality), low-noise, low-light photos? How much is that worth to a news photog or street shooter?

Once it's "in the wild" and market forces take over it'll find a price concordant with it's real value - likely in a year or so. I'd guess that if it's not pretty close to what Fuji is now asking, there will never be an X-Pro2.

I saw someone further below talking about this and weather sealing and comparing with 7D and such again.

Which reminded me about the new Pentax camera. Same sensor as K5 but the price was supposed to be like 750 dollars or so? I don't think the uhm.. "fitting" for the lenses was a good idea but the price is obviously better. That one lacks both OVF and EVF but whatever.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Lucas_: Why all the fuss around this camera? IMHO a Sony NEX-7 is superior hands down...

Feel free to tell me the benefits on dospam@gmail.com.

Better EVF, better AF? Better video? Lower price?

Only difference the pixel filter/whatever placement and differences in glass?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

ecm: The price is disappointing, but it's competition is not the D5100 or T3i, or even the enthusiast dSLRs, but rather Leica's digital rangefinder offerings. The body price is comparable to the low-end pro dSLR's (7D, D7000) which no doubt take better photos, in a more competent fashion.

But.... A POCKETABLE, INCONSPICUOUS, and SILENT camera that takes magazine quality (if not art gallery quality), low-noise, low-light photos? How much is that worth to a news photog or street shooter?

Once it's "in the wild" and market forces take over it'll find a price concordant with it's real value - likely in a year or so. I'd guess that if it's not pretty close to what Fuji is now asking, there will never be an X-Pro2.

The body price is above 7D and D7000.

It's neither of the three upper-case words.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Valentinian: There is a saying about the generals: they prepare for the wars of the past, not for the next war.
What do the Leica M9 and all FF DSLR have in common? They both adapted (successfully) a technology of the past (mirror, optical range finder) to a new generation of cameras (that use SENSORS not FILM, for crying out loud).
What are Panasonic, Olympus etc. trying to do? They are working on the evolution of SENSOR cameras. That in a near future will see super oled EVF much better than optical, and very fast autofocus.
What are Nikon, Canon and Fuji doing with the DSLR and the X-pro1 ? they are missing the boat of the future camera system, which is oled and mirrorless !

mr moonlight:

Only the lag factor is superior with an OVF.

All else is better with an EVF imho.

The photo you get will be a representation of what the lens and sensor see anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:06 UTC

A little too expensive I think. Why should it cost so much more than Samsungs or Sonys equivalents?

I kinda want it but not at an infinite price.

Price seem more appropriate for a FF camera.

I wonder what the other cameras in the series will cost. Also I hate the stupid "oh we'll cripple and ignore video"-ideas. But the "pros" seem to like it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:02 UTC as 53rd comment | 2 replies
On First full-res Fujifilm X-Pro1 images appear on the web article (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

micahmedia: ...looking at the images, the vertical pixel dimension spec matches the Sony 16mp sensor. I suspect this is based on that same sensor, with a different CFA slapped on. That said, the stills look promising.

However, the video looks a bit more jello-ey than the D7000 and Nex5n roll I'm familiar with. This will probably not compete on the video front. Still, with the fast primes it has a shot at competing in low light for stills. Maybe.

The proof of the pudding will be in the tasting.

It's not supposed to compete on the video front. I wish it was though. Stupid not to.

But I know there's plenty of haters for no obvious reason among the "well I'm a photographer!"-crowd.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

Brandon Feinberg: Could you imagine if they made tv's or computers with this display. It would look better than life but cost more than anything.

You mean the same amount of pixels / area size?

Unless it's a shitty laptop most screens already got a higher resolution. It's just that it's silly measured on this display. Just as the amount of pixels on the sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:58 UTC
In reply to:

Franka T.L.: 1280X1024 , and probably cost quite a deal , does not sound advance enough. Nice to be seeing such , but we need better than that and which that can better project the image.

Better what really?

Will you really see the individual pixels in that one? Won't it be brighter nicer than an OVF anyway? (lag being the only issue.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: By no means am I a luddite, but having used several decent EVFs and OVFs, I can't understand why the photographers on here are so anxious to see the demise of the OVF. Is a mirror-box so large that you must do away with it? Peaking is cool, and WB preview is fine, but I would still rather actually see what the lens sees than have a representation of the image created for me. Reality is always better than virtual reality, especially when the light gets low. :-)

At first I wanted to say that the EVF show what the lens see (didn't got the representation), but then there's the lag I suppose.

So instead I have to change it into:
So what's wrong with seeing what the combination of sensor + lens + algorithms actually will result in?

Which would be more appropriate.

As far as low light goes I assume if not now then at least in some time the light will probably be able to be boosted beyond what you naturally see with your eyes.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:53 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

GuptaD42: Is there a technical limitation why Fuji could not have used an existing mount, like the m43?

He probably meant together with a m43 sensor? Or the NX or E mount for APS-C.

I guess it's also a stupid tradition to use loads of mounts (I just found out car makers have their own stereo connectors even though all not-their-brand-car stereos use the same one .. :D, same with phone chargers earlier.)

Of course one standard mount for APS-C mirrorless, one for APS-C DSLR, and so on would be better.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 20:18 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyesforseeing: This does look enticing as it is smaller and lighter than a DSLR. And the large sample images here (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/) are very impressive.

But of the 8 sample shots only 3 use a shutter speed faster than 1/58. And the fastest shot at 1/550 (conceivably fast enough to be non tripod) is soft focus. I'm not an expert but it seems that, unless I'm using a tripod, lack of IS might be an issue for someone with hands as shaky as mine. So possibly not the street camera for me.

Am I mistaken? I guess the M9 doesn't have IS...

As others have said the optical primes for the other systems rarely have VR/IS either or do they? Zooms do but they don't have as large aperture so I don't see the problem.

Of course it would be best if the camera a sensor shift IS such as Pentax and Sony because then you would get IS even with the primes.

But if you shoot with an aperture of 1.4 or 1.8 and iso 800 or so will you really get shaky images?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 19:57 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)

They shouldn't had skimped on the video features. I know some idiots will complain but there's not like they got anything to lose by having the camera also being good for video.

Seem awesome except for that issue. Eventually I would had been ok with only EVF if they made it as good as possible.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 13:33 UTC as 186th comment
In reply to:

Kevin Cheesman: Great products, but aren't these destroying photographers businesses?

As a school photographer and administrator of www.schoolphotopro.com, our members are all suffering because of this type of technology as parents can now easily run off copies of their school photos. When they can make copies so easily why would they want buy more than just a single print?

Who cares?

As if school photos were important anyway?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2011 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

Don Richardson: I've used Canon printers for years and never had a print head clogg. The pring quality is exceptional and printing is cheap and fast. IP4000 since it came out and the IP4700 for the last two years.

I bought the 365 or whatever it was called and it clogged and I never got that many prints out of it.

Ordering from a company is cheaper and results would be better so ..

Imho canon inkjet and ink suck, total waste of money.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2011 at 04:47 UTC

The right printer to choose is none at all*.

Ink-jet printers suck and you'll get better quality and a lower price letting someone else handle your copies so why bother?

(Choosing a laser printer is another option but in those cases the Kindle may be a better choice.)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2011 at 04:45 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
Total: 40, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »