aliquis

Joined on May 13, 2010

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Since they show focal length that was pretty useless.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2013 at 02:56 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
On photo Ring of Fire in the Fire Forms challenge (7 comments in total)

Is it one of those "firesource on a rope" or is it somehow related to scratching the ground to?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 09:30 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Charles Laigo: Not that it really went away (only died down a bit), but is the megapixel race now back with a vengeance?

But anyone who understand anything understand that it's the bigger sensor which is more important, not the number of pixels.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

teeoh717: It definitely is intriguing, but my original three-year-old Moto Droid (that I still haven't gotten the opportunity of ditching just yet) has a higher 854x480 resolution display (@ 265ppi), even at an inch smaller...

180ppi (320x640) on a phone with a 41 megapixel camera?? What exactly was Nokia thinking? Utter deal breaker in my opinion.

There's a reason most new DSLR screens carry 270+ ppi density. Going "back" to anything lower is a noticeable step backwards. What a shame.

At least it had the best contrast in sun light GSM arena had measured.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Albert Ang: How much the film cost?

$15/£10 / 30 pictures.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:23 UTC
In reply to:

zos xavius: I gotta admit it. Maybe a sony fanboy can clue me in. Why pick slt over dslr? Most of us want an ovf. I've used evfs and even when the refresh rate keeps up they feel slow. Also most evfs only give you what was shot during burst, making leading a moving target almost impossible. With a mirror it at least gives you a glimpse of the next frame. Then there is the 20% light loss. That's huge. Also there is the fact that fine details are lost at roughly 5-10%. This combined with an aa filter an bayer array doesn't really help image quality does it? Also does dust just collect on the mirror? At least my camera shakes dust from the sensor. I still have to clean every few months, but it helps a lot. I mean I change lenses all the time in outside conditions. Usually I have little choice. If there was just a mirror there it would be a mess. My mirror is a mess as it is and my focusing screen looks pretty awful, but my sensor is pretty clean. That says a lot. Mirror boxes get filthy. I saw shots with the mirror pulled and they were clearly sharper, and the article was written by a sony fan, so it doesn't seem like he wanted to fake it to smear sony. It just has so many drawbacks. The only thing it gains for all the compromises is phase detection. Surely you could implement phase detection a bit more gracefully. What gets me is that it still uses a mirror but has no ovf. That just seems kind of...well...odd.... Someone tell me what I'm missing. It seems like slt is the future for sony in the dslr space. I would much rather see them do more cameras like the a900. I'm no sony fan, I'm just trying to get why they would bet so much on a design that offers few advantages over a traditional dslr. Are they that convinced that evf is superior or that's what they think the market wants? I shoot pentax and the k-01 as odd as it is, makes more sense than slt. Isn't that funny? A k-01 with an evf would be superior to this except that it wouldn't have phase detection, but contrast detection is catching up fast. Look at the olympus om-d or the panny g3. They are just poor at panning with moving objects. To me that's a software problem. Cdaf will certainly pass pdaf by in the long run. So if you ask me in 5 years this whole system will seem kind of pointless. Am I wrong? I'm not trolling or anything. I've read a lot about slt to try to understand why anyone would find it superior. Maybe I'm just too much of a traditionalist. I like innovation, but only when it comes with real benefits.

You get to see how the final picture will look?

Link | Posted on May 19, 2012 at 03:41 UTC
On article Sony SLT-A37 Hands-on Preview (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

kushal raj patnaik: hell! this model is so close to the sony slt a57!! gosh!
i was going to buy the a57, but here comes a37 which has again confused me to which model ii should buy!

evn the cost difference is a 100 bucks and the difference between their features is not worth the price change!

really!! sony, the a57 was a drastic change...but, yet another model!

In what ways?

Link | Posted on May 19, 2012 at 03:24 UTC
On article Leica M-Monochrom Hands-on Preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Coulter: Ya butt does it squirt water?

It's got an app for that.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2012 at 14:46 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (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 :)

Link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:49 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (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.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:46 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (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.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:43 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:02 UTC as 53rd comment | 2 replies
On article First full-res Fujifilm X-Pro1 images appear on the web (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.

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.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:58 UTC
Total: 45, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »