peevee1

peevee1

Joined on Mar 28, 2012

Comments

Total: 2977, showing: 801 – 820
« First‹ Previous3940414243Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Shellbo6901: maybe if the 4k were in the gf sized mirrorless camera would I get it.

Well, it is in many smartphones now...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2014 at 10:34 UTC

Solo does not make much sense. And honestly, without stabilizing vibration, it is less useful than it could have been.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2014 at 20:24 UTC as 19th comment
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: DPR, kudos on your new video still comparison - very enlightening. :)

But your AF page (not even a page) is still beyond pathetic.

(A) you can devise your own method, just like their use their own test scene for comparisons.
(B) perform tests with kit lenses first (after all, it is what most buyers do), cheap teles second (55-200 etc, this is what most buyers buy as a second lens), sports zooms third (70-200/2.8).
(C) but differences between cameras are not.

Rent a warehouse with lighting similar to gyms (after all it is what a lot of gyms do), set up a mannequin with a resolution chart on its chest on a carousel and shoot away. How hard can it be?
S-AF is even simpler, even primitive.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 02:46 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Provia_fan: I agree with so many of you. That's exactly what Bresson, Winogrand, Gilden, Eggleston used to say. They packed their cameras and went home saying "Poor phase detection, no face detection and no touchable screen, no HDR mode, EVF too small and too big....can't shoot!" Because they depended on all these things, that's how they built their careers. :P

Any of them shot sports in poorly lit gyms by any chance?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 23:06 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Krich13: Does this camera allow Exposure Compensation in Auto-ISO mode in the Manual regime (user-selected shutter speed and aperture)? Does it allow shot deletion at any level of magnification (X-E1 didn't)?

"@Krich13 - The camera does not honour the Exposure Comp. dial when in Manual with Auto ISO."

Oh. That is a major down.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 22:56 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jimmy jang Boo: dpr writes...

"The X-E2 isn't a great all-rounder... Not so good for sports or action photography."

No wonder MILCs can't gain any traction against DSLRs. Even the latest greatest are handicapped.

" Even the latest greatest are handicapped."

X-E2 is not "the latest greatest". Try E-M1, X-T1, a6000. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 22:50 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2 Review (316 comments in total)

DPR, kudos on your new video still comparison - very enlightening. :)

But your AF page (not even a page) is still beyond pathetic.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 22:48 UTC as 85th comment | 2 replies
On Connect post Camera ready in two shakes: Motorola Moto X camera review (37 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: Who cares, the review is at least half a year too late anyway.

DPR should wake up to the speed of technological development today. If it is not within 1 month after release, it is too late. And no amount of inconsequential details (like their 3-page menu guides for cameras) can save them - by the time you release it, it is just no more than a historical research paper.

Wasn't a Galaxy or ten released in Europe too? ;)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 02:37 UTC
On Connect post Camera ready in two shakes: Motorola Moto X camera review (37 comments in total)

Who cares, the review is at least half a year too late anyway.

DPR should wake up to the speed of technological development today. If it is not within 1 month after release, it is too late. And no amount of inconsequential details (like their 3-page menu guides for cameras) can save them - by the time you release it, it is just no more than a historical research paper.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 16:03 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

peevee1: This Masaya Maeda comes off as incredibly smug, even in the picture.

"Up to now, we've been known by consumers as leaders in still photography,"

By ignorant consumers maybe.

Right. Nokia and Blackberry had all the market to themselves too.
They only has the market because they have very strong brand names, properly earned all the way to 2009. Since then they sell the value of their brands, piece by piece, to ignorant consumers who don't know better.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

halc: Considering that smartphones have already killed Canon's pocket camera sales, they should perhaps view their business differently.

I can't understand how slow and tired Canon has become.

It's DSLR line is pretty much only alive because of inertia, old legacy lens selection and 5DmkIII. Everything else they ship is old, tired, worse than competition in features and performance.

Inertia. Old Canon users.

They will grow less and less every year.

Unless Canon really does something new, innovative and something that makes them competitive again.

Like market share of Nokia in 2007 refuted every critic. Oh, wait...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

ThePartaker: If canon are sensible they will not make a mirorless camera until the electronic viewfinder resolution is better - say 4,000,000. The current ones are far inferior to mirrors for focussing and following action.

EVF resolution, EVF lag and focusing in the last crop of mirrorless, like E-M1, X-T1, GH4 are more than enough. S-AF is faster than DSLRs for 2-3 years now.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I suppose I'm getting old, but a smartphone camera holds about as much appeal to me as canned spaghetti does to a 5-star restaurant chef. If you can't be bothered to tote a real camera with you when we have such small marvels like a Sony RX100, and any of them will absolutely smoke even the best smartphone camera, then you have zero credibility as a photographer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a snapshooter, I'm a hobbyist photographer, I could give 2 turds less what the Polaroid and Kodak Instamatic crowd like. They're beneath me and any other hobbyist or professional as far as any relevance beyond just being the mass consumer that makes prints at WalMart.

"then you have zero credibility as a photographer"

Actual "photographers" are the tiny part of camera market, even DSLR market which is dominated by the likes of Rebel.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

Rob Bernhard: [[Americans also seem to prefer bigger cameras. Sales for the Rebel SL1 have not been as great as we expected in America, for example. We've received some complaints about it being too small. But in Japan and Asia we don't see any complaints about that. So we have to be mindful of the differences between regions.]]

It's a shame the SL1 is not selling well, but I suspect it's more about price than size. Certainly there are those that truly need a larger camera, and there are those who measure their virility by the size of their camera, but a lot of people do want a smaller camera with good performance. The SL1 checks a lot of boxes. But it does so at $750 in the big box stores (with lens). Canon has been offering incentive/discounts but I think it's too little too late.

SL1 was DPR reader's THE WORST DSLR of 2013. Which is not surprising at all given that it is just an outdated 4 y/o t2i, only made even worse by installing weaker flash, smaller battery and removing one microphone.
It is not comfortable to hold like DSLR (gripping around the grip) because the grip is too small, but unlike mirrorless, it is not comfortable to hold like a compact (cradling in the base of the palm) because it is still to thick. And no advantages of mirrorless.
Useless thing. Pure failure.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 13:45 UTC

This Masaya Maeda comes off as incredibly smug, even in the picture.

"Up to now, we've been known by consumers as leaders in still photography,"

By ignorant consumers maybe.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 12:26 UTC as 44th comment | 8 replies

If, instead of getting 24 fps video in 5:1 and then basing their tests on that, they got just one frame of 1 fps video (and RED is capable of that) in 1:1, the results MIGHT have some validity. As it is, they measured the results of both temporal (interframe) and 5:1 intraframe noise reduction.
Just shows that DxO methods do not detect and take into account loss of color resolution coming with noise reduction (and it would mean that their results for X-trans suffering from the same problem would also be too high).

How I am tired from all the incompetent "testers" who really should be McDonalds burger flippers...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 12:11 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

peevee1: They did not obtain real raw and processed it with their own DxO software. They got red proprietary video stream and processed it with RED software, which could have done whatever it wanted, including interframe noise reduction. Lame.

Their "color response" score is based on low noise at base ISO - read the article. And the low ISO is based on interframce noise reduction (not to mention intraframe noise reduction because the sensor does not even output 1:1:1 pixel data - at 6K they start at 5:1 to begin with - yes, this is averaging of color information between 5 pixels, this gotta reduce color noise don't you think? ;-)

And if you read up on their method, you will see that they consider even 20 bits of color information as excellent (as they should, humans don't see and paper and displays don't show the difference long before that), yet their outdated score overweighs this color part, giving advantage for useless

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 12:04 UTC

They did not obtain real raw and processed it with their own DxO software. They got red proprietary video stream and processed it with RED software, which could have done whatever it wanted, including interframe noise reduction. Lame.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 03:27 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies

What does "Options for working with tilt-shift" mean?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 03:16 UTC as 58th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Stephan K: Strange coincidence, just yesterday I was reading about details (and reading the actual court application handed in 3 days ago) of a class action brought by attorneys Zimmerman in the US re the D600. Links are on the Nikonrumours.com site.

"Coincidence". Good one! ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 15:29 UTC
Total: 2977, showing: 801 – 820
« First‹ Previous3940414243Next ›Last »