Archiver

Archiver

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 24, 2005

Comments

Total: 142, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1148 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The most important thing to remember about the LX100 is not just that it has a bigger sensor but it also has larger pixels. Most companies are cramming 20+ megapixels into their 1 inch sensors. This 4/3 of an inch sensor only has 17 megapixels.

The low light capabilities of this camera should be outstanding.

I agree that the low light capabilities should be excellent, but not considerably better than a 16mp m43 body. We're talking about a 16+mp 4/3 sensor which is fairly standard, not a huge pixel anomaly like the Sony A7s 12mp full frame sensor.

At best, the low light capabilities will be like a GM1 or GH4 with a f1.7 lens. Maybe a bit better if they improve the processor.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 23:46 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1148 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: So basically what they are saying:

"It has got a micro four thirds sensor but it has been downsized to delivering images that are more on a level with a 1" sensor"

This is completely pointless, if the Micro four thirds sensor would have been FULLY used then I would of thought about it, but this is just stupid. Stick a 1" in there or USE the sensor size that is IN the camera to your ADVANTAGE, you are NOT doing that.

Sigh. The LX100 is rather like the DX mode in Nikon full frame cameras that allows you to shoot Nikon aps-c lenses on a full frame body. Same as aps-c E-mount lenses on full frame Sony A bodies.

DX mode gives an aps-c sized crop of the full frame image, resulting in full frame dynamic range, light gathering, high ISO and fine tonal gradation, but with cropped resolution and aps-c depth of field characteristics.

The LX100 works the same way. You should get m43 dynamic range, light gathering, high ISO and tonal gradations, but with less resolution, and slightly longer depth of field. IOW, m43 image quality with longer depth of field.

Or to put it yet another way. It's a crop of a 4/3 sensor. You're not losing any image quality apart from resolution and depth of field control. Colour, high ISO, dynamic range etc ought to be the same as a m43 camera.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 23:42 UTC
On Zeiss launches Loxia full frame lenses for Sony E-mount article (268 comments in total)

Interesting that Zeiss have determined the Sony full frame E-mount system to be viable enough to create a whole new lens line, and that the market for manual focus lenses with declickable aperture is also enough.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 03:23 UTC as 41st comment | 7 replies
On Zeiss launches Loxia full frame lenses for Sony E-mount article (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

white shadow: Excellent news for those who are considering buying a Sony full frame Alpha system. Lets hope the built and image quality is similar or better than the ZE and ZF range as the pricing appear to be similar.

Now, we can look forward to consider buying a Sony a7R body.

That's a really good point about build quality. I have a number of ZM lenses and at least half of them have developed loose front barrels and focus rings over only a few years. Not what I was expecting from expensive lenses from Zeiss.

Ironically, I also have a number of Voigtlander lenses which were made in the same factory and sell for about half the price of their Zeiss counterparts, and none of them have the mechanical issues of the ZM lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Wow, for the price of these adapter, might as well pick up an extra Rebel SL1 when you want to shoot Canon lenses.

@ bigley Ling - Yes, the SL1 will be better than a Speedbooster on a m43 body for fast and continuous AF. But someone who is buying the Speedbooster is not looking for those capabilities.

It's like saying that a Ferrari will accelerate way faster than a Toyota Landcruiser. Of course it will. And someone buying the Landcruiser is not going to want to use it to blast down the autobahn, they want to pack loads of gear and go offroad, something you can't do with a Ferrari.

It seems that a number of DPReview readers don't get what the Speedbooster is for. It's not for stills photographers. It's not for Canon users who want a change in bodies. It's for film makers who already have EF glass and want to take advantage of this wonderful glass with the superior video capabilties of m43 cameras like the GH3, GH4 and Blackmagic Cinema cams.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2014 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Wow, for the price of these adapter, might as well pick up an extra Rebel SL1 when you want to shoot Canon lenses.

@ bigley Ling - the whole point of the Speedbooster is to maximize use of EF lenses for video on m43 cameras. The SL1 is nowhere near the same league as the GH4 for video quality and functionality. Someone who buys the EF-m43 Speedbooster is VERY unlikely to buy an entry level Canon DSLR for video purposes.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2014 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Wow, for the price of these adapter, might as well pick up an extra Rebel SL1 when you want to shoot Canon lenses.

This adapter is aimed at those videographers who already have Canon lenses, and want to use them with m43 cameras. And this adapter would not exist were it not for this market asking Metabones for a viable EF-m43 Speedbooster. The SL1 has none of the benefits of a GH3 or GH4 and would be completely superfluous to someone who uses m43 as their primary video capture system.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

Poweruser: "Canon EF to Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster will cost $599"

Silly... Get a proper EOS Digital at that price.

The adapter is aimed at videographers and film makers who have Canon EF lenses that they want to adapt to their m43 gear. As of this time of writing, no Canon EOS camera at $599 comes anywhere close to the Panasonic GH3 or GH4 for video quality and functionality.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 05:43 UTC
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carlton Foxx: The only problem with this essay is that you're not buying a bunch of specs or a box of metal, plastic, and glass.... You're buying the engineering talent of the people at Fuji who used their experience, education, and judgement to create what in their minds is a camera that best uses the technology that the company has developed over the years. That's what makes this camera different from the nikons and canons and olympii....

Right, and Canon, Olympus and Nikon are just newcomers to the camera game with hardly any experience, talent, education or judgement? Fuji and Canon were both founded in the 30's and Nikon and Olympus in the 1910's. Exchange the name 'Fuji' for Canon, Nikon or Olympus in your statement above and it still holds true.

While the camera may be the product of Fuji's engineering and design talent, the ultimate result is still a camera which competes with others in a similar price range.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 01:42 UTC
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

MPA1: I used to have an X-Pro 1 but sold it as the AF just was not fast enough for my needs despite firmware upgrades etc.

What I really want is a camera like the Leica M9 which has fast AF. I don't even care if it costs as much as an M9 as long as it has the quality of image and build combined with small form factor and discrete operation.

Once that camera becomes available, my DSLR's are gone.

The Sony A7 series is moving in that direction, but not the rangefinder form factor, nor discreet operation.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 01:28 UTC
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 compact mirrorless camera announced article (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: "...horizontal and vertical angular shifts (yam and pitch)..."
YAM..(?) Yummy?
YAWL...Maybe.
From the aerodynamic trilogy: Pitch, Yawl & Roll.

Don't you mean DHell, with a silent d?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 00:43 UTC
On Olympus PEN E-PL7 compact mirrorless camera announced article (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

wackybit: I feel bad for whoever bought the black 12mm f2 at 'limited edition' prices

For over two years, they were the only way to get a black 12/2. At least they got a lens hood as well. I'm just glad that I never succumbed to the temptation at the time, as I will be able to buy a normal production black version for the price of the silver.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

Maklike Tier: No red dot? Brand strategy fail. But at least they did the research and found out that there was a market for an even more expensive Leica.

Leica always knew there is a market for a camera without the red dot. Hence, the popularity of the MP, and the M9-P. For Leica to release a M-P with no red dot and include a sapphire screen, at a higher cost, is no surprise. At least this model also includes a 2GB buffer to increase continuous shooting capabilities, rather than being purely a cosmetic upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 02:41 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

dark goob: If Hollywood concentrated on making great movies instead of all this fancy-looking gear, we might have more than one great film every three to four years interspersed with schlock-show after schlock-show. The epic scale of this wasteland is only dwarfed by the scale of the money and talent wasted to create it.

"Hollywood" doesn't make the gear. They make movies. Not sure what you term 'schlock' vs 'good', either.

Just about every major award winning or nominated film of the last few years has been shot on an Arri Alexa digital cinema camera that costs 80k for the body alone, or on Panavision or Arriflex film cameras that cost tens of thousands, or the RED Epic that costs 50-60k. High end cine lenses cost upwards of 20k each. Then add the masses of rigging, lighting, set design, props, locations...

Not that good movies cannot be made without all this gear, but many fine movies ARE.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 02:37 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkosewski: They took the A7S and they built this complicated rig, but they used one of Nikon's lenses.
This really tells the whole story about Sony E system...

Yes, so many other companies produce 600mm f4 lenses at a quality level suitable for digital cinema. Sony should have had a whole range of at least Zeiss-level cine anamorphics available the minute the A7S was announced.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 02:25 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: I don't get "high budget" shoots. They use super high-powered lights during broad outdoor daylight then stack a bunch of ND filters on their lenses.

Shooting video requires a shutter speed that is "twice the inverse" of the frame rate. The usual video frame rate in America is 24p, so they need to shoot at a shutter speed of 1/50. Shooting at faster or slower shutter speeds creates choppy motion or excessively blurred motion, respectively. Daylight shoots will require ND's for this reason alone.

Secondly, native ISO of digital cinema cameras is much higher than consumer digital still cameras. Native ISO of the Canon C100/300/500 is 800. So to get best image quality, you already need ND filters to shoot at native ISO in well lit situations.

Thirdly, for maximum image quality and dynamic range, the A7S was probably shot using the super flat profile 'S-Log 2', which has a native ISO of 3200.

Try shooting in bright daylight with a 1/50 shutter speed and ISO 3200, and find out whether you need ND filters or not. Now imagine it with those 'super high-powered lights' you talked about.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: @abortabort:
> And the aspiring amateur HAS to have 4K?

I think I can answer that, because situation really reminds me of the 5-10 years ago when everybody was buying DSLRs to be able to shoot RAW. And everybody was asking "why the amateurs need the RAW?"

The thing is that amateurs need the extra quality - in still RAW, in video 4K - because they make mistakes more often than pros and enthusiasts. If you have a cooked file - JPEG or highly compressed video - options to correct the mistake are very very limited, or non-existent. While with the uncooked files, one has plethora of possibilities to correct almost any beginner's errors present.

So in a way, I can easily imagine the "aspiring amateur" videographers wanting the 4K. It simply opens up many possibilities that were simply not there before.

One sure can't relieve the moment, but with the RAW images and 4K video one can PP one heck out of it.

An analogy with different cameras:

The difference between the video output of the Olympus EM-5 and the Panasonic GH3 is quite marked. When I first got the EM-5, I thought the video was excellent. But the GH3 showed me what I was missing with 25/50p and a much better codec. And that's just at the level of 1080p. 4K represents a similar kind of jump in quality, at least. It can be hard to imagine something that is better than what you currently think is good until you see it for yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Another $0.02: after a certain point, AF becomes meaningless if one gets into movie making. Wireless focus racking starts to steal our money, and all that's left is image quality and detail. As Philip Bloom said, "Autofocus will never work because the camera doesn't know where I want to focus."

Accurate AF is a godsend if you're shooting documentary work, particularly in fast moving situations. It's not about focus pulls from foreground to background, but quickly and accurately acquiring focus when the scene changes, or the subject moves. I use the GH3 and am looking forward to the improvements of the GH4.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 06:26 UTC
In reply to:

Gollan: When I received my D7100 kit through the mail from Future Shop Canada, I was surprised to see that it was shipped in it's original box; FutureShop just put an address label on it! Canada Post has had intermittent problems over the years with theft, but overall I consider them trustworthy, reasonably fast and a good value. It is interesting that someone at a specific point in the vast postal system somehow has the ability to detect and steal high-value packages. At least this is rare enough that it made the national news here in Canada.

I'm surprised at what what must either have been slackness or naivete on the part of Future Shop Canada in that instance. Shipping a camera, or any other expensive and easily salable piece of equipment in its original box, is just asking for trouble. Glad you got your package okay.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 08:51 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Kind of ironic that they chose an image with almost nothing in focus.

The train track is actually curved? Heck, I thought it was lens/sensor distortion!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 01:57 UTC
Total: 142, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »