vadims

vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006
About me:

Canon 5D Mk2, Sony RX100 Mk2, Tuscen TCH 5.0 ICE (cooled CCD), lots of older cameras.
Canon 16-35/2.8L II, 24-105/4L, 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, Canon 500D and lots of filters and extension tubes, SLICK Pro 400DX tripod, Canon 430EX and Metz 28AF-3C speedlights, Rekam HALO-Pro 1000 Kit MOD3.1 and other professional lighting equipment.

Comments

Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

vadims: I wonder if Canon will ever fix their lenses that do not work well with Sony bodies (or rather Metabones adapter).

All my Canon lenses except 50/1.4 work fine. The 50 would not autofocus, and that is an expected behavior according to Metabones site.

Come on, Canon, it's time to take care of firmware in your lenses on other companies' bodies...

> Why would they do that ? :P

Yeah, no reason, no reason at all ;)

Would be nice to live long enough to read something like "Yes, because Canon is responsible for the cr*p software Sigma installs on its lenses" (see post below), but not with Sigma on the receiving end :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:21 UTC

I wonder if Canon will ever fix their lenses that do not work well with Sony bodies (or rather Metabones adapter).

All my Canon lenses except 50/1.4 work fine. The 50 would not autofocus, and that is an expected behavior according to Metabones site.

Come on, Canon, it's time to take care of firmware in your lenses on other companies' bodies...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:59 UTC as 4th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

sneakyracer: Again, this kind of candor and frankness in an interview of a top Photo Industry executive is refreshing (much like Fuji's) and a stark contrast to Canon's typical tiptoeing/walking on eggshells interview's which seem rehearsed (they kinda remind me of TV programming in communist countries)

Sigma's CEO is an even better (positive) example.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

The Customer: "SuperRAW mode takes four shots in rapid succession, then combines them afterwards..."

You would need a computer the size of a cargo van to pull that sort of thing off, at least in anything under two weeks of round-the-clock processing! Unless computers have changed since the book I once read about them was published.

> Unless computers have changed since the book I once
> read about them was published.

They surely did. Even my ageing LG G2 has more than 2 times the processing power of Cray 2 supercomputer (4.5GFlops vs 1.9GFlops):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supercomputing#The_Cray_era:_mid-1970s_and_1980s

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

JoeBingham: Read this...

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/3adqnl/has_dpreview_lost_its_way_a_commentary_on_their/

My main assumption, Rishi, is that we're all people. You, me, Barney, everyone. People make mistakes. I made my share. If you think you didn't make any (in this conversation), well, that's also human. As well as this:

> Not full assault, just not sugar-coated.

Cool line ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 14:20 UTC

I have to say I'm impressed.

And am wondering when we're going to get the first spacecam -- like those webcams to which anyone can connect and get frequent [enough] updates...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 00:44 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

JoeBingham: Read this...

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/3adqnl/has_dpreview_lost_its_way_a_commentary_on_their/

Yeah, thanks. It does help, believe it or not (or rather would have helped).

One last thing, if I may.

Look at your previous post. You wrote four paragraphs explaining how screwed my assumptions were. As if I was on a crusade to destroy DPR, and your defense was a life and death matter. But was I, really?

I would agree that that "Nice" was uncalled for, especially in retrospect. Sorry about that. The rest? Given what I knew at the time, I still do not think I'd express myself any better, unfortunately. Wanted to let you know my honest opinion, and did just that. Not meaning any insults.

I do not post on LL forum, but read it sometimes. Recently witnessed MR replying to an almost rude guy by just picking tech questions from his post and answering them. A class act.

You guys have no issue with going on full assault on your visitors if you *assume* he/she is there just bash you. IMHO that's one wrong assumption more often than not... Then again, what do I know. Just my 2c.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

JoeBingham: Read this...

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/3adqnl/has_dpreview_lost_its_way_a_commentary_on_their/

> Your assumptions. We did not even take that photo; it was from a slide presented to us.

That's even worse as far as I'm concerned. You just re-post marketing materials provided to you. OK.

My assumptions... Well, my assumption would be to see "Image courtesy DxO", or something, below. Guess I expected too much. Will adjust my expectations next time, thanks for the heads up.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

JoeBingham: Read this...

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/3adqnl/has_dpreview_lost_its_way_a_commentary_on_their/

Barney, I'd easily agree that that post is over the top. But before you dismiss it as nonsense, you may want to think about what provoked it in the first place.

I didn't read that post through (no need), but it seems like they didn't even mention the size comparison w/RX100m3. Yes, you have that small print below -- but you also popped Sony's viewfinder to make it look bigger. Nice...

Yes, I understand this camera most probably is an engineering feat. I myself like what they did with the lens, a lot.

Yes, I understand you may be truly excited about it. As MR once wrote on LL, "you may think that I sound as overly excited, but that's because I am", or something along those lines... But MR always points out his reviews are not "normal reviews", he admits "soft spots" for brands etc.

You on the other hand pretend to be "objective" (even though I do not believe *anyone* can claim that, but well...). If so, you could do better with this article, that's my point.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 19:13 UTC

'First Truly Connected Camera', huh...

Any camera module in any smartphone is more connected than that -- at least, it cannot be disconnected. Let alone things like Lumix CM1.

They could use some discretion in their marketing. Like, say, Sony marketed their a6000 as "fastest focusing camera with APS-C sensor", which was bold enough and yet way, way more accurate (it even left room for GH4, that was faster, but not APS-C) than DxO's... well, overstatement.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 00:18 UTC as 57th comment | 2 replies
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (956 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: I can only say I am a man of vision:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6223902518/sony-rides-wave-of-us-mirrorless-sales-surge?comment=0894956241

Just re-read that thread you pointed to; one of the responses:

"Canon lenses are designed for off sensor PDAF, a completely different lens design than the CDAF lenses of the E mount."

Gotta love internet ;) <sigh...>

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: "After a certain point, old digital cameras are just that: old digital cameras."
How true is that!
Every time Leica is trying to do something extraordinary, they fall short of the most recent technical developments. Even the optics are not the end of the world, just take a look at Sigma's M&Q series.
The name recognition seems to be the best selling point: people who buy the Leicas don't ask others what they think about the cam. They just have to have it.
A perfect description of the niche product.

> Yet M8's are still selling for quite a high dollar amount

M8 can now be had for less than $1,700 vs original $4,795.

> There is much less risk of devaluation of Leica digital equipment

The word "risk" implies that something may or may not happen, whereas with digital equipment it is a certainty.

At some point, M8s will be selling at their "bragging rights" value, not as photographic tools. How big is that value going to be? Only time will tell...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 21:28 UTC
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (956 comments in total)
In reply to:

theprehistorian: Regarding the dreaded lossy RAW compression, see David Etchells's comments here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/10/sony-rx10-ii-rx100-iv-and-a7r-ii-announced-were-blogging-live-from-the-pres

Apparently he was told Sony might try to sort this out via a firmware update. I can't believe they've released a new flagship body with this problem though, they obviously design these things in blissful ignorance of photographers' feedback.

Yeah, and what exactly did he say? "I discussed with them, emphasized that its lack is an issue for them in the marketplace"

See? An "issue... in the marketplace" (i.e. negative publicity of sorts), not a real issue for working pros.

Before you respond: I wouldn't go as far as to call all these complaints as whining; I do think that lots of improvements are only there because enough people complained about something that wasn't right. I just think that this particular thing is blown out of proportion -- and, as a Sony shooter, it is most certainly not only a non-issue for me, but I'll keep shooting lossy RAWs even when/if lossless RAWs become available.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 13:03 UTC
On Sony a7R II has 42.4MP on full frame BSI CMOS sensor article (1254 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimitris Roubos: a9r will make espresso

> will it have a cup holder for the espresso?

Doesn't matter if it will -- people will still complain it's not exactly the right shape...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (559 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJN: Rectangular lens hoods are common in Leicaland since they intrude less into a rangefinder's view. Since there's no optical finder to justify the squared-off, non reversible hood, I can only assume that this one represents style over function.

> Function over Style. Bravo Leica!

Yep, either you use hood, OR lens cap. So much for function.

Details of this screw up here:

https://luminous-landscape.com/leica-q-hands-on-and-video-interview/

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (559 comments in total)
In reply to:

joshxiv: I wonder how much smaller they could have made the lens if they dropped the IS. I think most potential buyers here would value size vs IS? Or just me?

The RX2 will come in at a lower price point, for sure. There's a chance it might even have a built in EVF, but it is unlikely it will have an on-lens distance scale like the Q. I know I will be in a tiny, tiny minority here, but for the way I shoot, AF + on-lens distance scale makes the price difference worth it for me. Of course, I largely prefer 28mm vs 35mm too, LOL.

Might be time to say sorry to the wallet. Unless of course the GR II turns out to be full frame as well, haha.

Watch video interview with Leica officials at Luminous Landscape.

They claim that IS is off by default because it deteriorates image quality, "especially in the corners"... I cannot think of a reason for them to say that unless IS is actually electronic and not optical. (I'm not saying it's actually non-optical, just that Leica's statement is weird and does lead to certain conclusions...)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

lester11: As ever, whether something is good or bad, worthy or unworthy, depends on context... I have no connection with Marwell, except that I live nearby and visit with friends and the grand-children once or twice a year. I find the place really cares about its animals and really cares about educating its visitors. Give 'em £10? Sure, a worthy donation to a good cause. Let 'em use one of my photos if they think it's any good? Sure, I've seen their stuff and I know they'll use it to promote positive awareness of nature and the environment. Am I wagging my moral finger at anyone? Nah, if I had any reservations I just wouldn't enter. Simple, huh?

Thanks for extra info. Had a second look at their site...

Seems like I jumped to a hasty conclusion about them the first time I read their announcement.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2015 at 01:08 UTC
In reply to:

Lan: From the website:
"each entrant grants to Marwell Wildlife a non-exclusive irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and communicate to the public by any means and exhibit their awarded image(s) and copies of their awarded image(s) in all media throughout the world in relation to the competition and the exhibition including but not limited to all use in the context of:
- Judging the competition.
- Display in the exhibition.
- Inclusion in Marwell Wildlife magazines and/or similar.
- Inclusion within Marwell Wildlife websites and social media channels.
- Inclusion in promotional, press and marketing materials associated with the competition and/or Marwell Wildlife.
- Inclusion in any merchandising associated with the competition and/or Marwell Wildlife.
non-refundable entry fee of £10 is payable for adults by credit or debit card and up to 5 images are permitted per competition entry."

Yeah... It even goes a bit further:

"Don't worry if you're struggling to find your top 5 photos to enter - you can enter twice and up to 10 images if you like."

What a caring company...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2015 at 07:39 UTC
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mescalamba: - Camera is bulky when compared to mirrorless rivals

Aaand? Like, you know.. its dSLR? Why the heck you put this into cons. Its dSLR so its normal that its not flat. Kinda obvious, logical and whatnot.

Its like saying, lemon is sour and apple is sweet so apple is better.

Plus show me comparable AF in mirrorless. No? Why? Well, maybe cause they are mirrorless? :D

You know, when you argue that "its not in score" or "just for you to know" why just pick one and not include whole "difference against mirrorless due nature of technologies".

It wouldnt hurt to just pick "compare everything to mirrorless" or "compare only within same type of camera".

@Richard

> that looks a little reductio ad absurdum, to me.

OT: is there a way to use italics in the comments fore mere mortals?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 06:57 UTC

Even the price/value thing aside, IMHO there's one thing that is not quite right with this Leica... Or rather where it could be improved.

B&W film used to have incredible exposure latitude. When I see a B&W image, I can usually tell whether it's film or digital from how dark/black tones are rendered. It is indeed hard to describe (yeah, it often irritates me when people talk about "magic and sparkle" w/o quantifying it, yet here I am, talking about essentially the same...), but the end result is that the properly exposed and processed B&W image (BTW, I shot a lot of B&W film) looks very contrasty even though there are many midtones and few blacks.

IMHO the closest counterpart of B&W film would be a sensor with biggest DR (Sony 12m sensor comes to mind), with FW essentially doing one-image HDR by pulling up blacks. Or something along those lines. That's way more important than lack of Bayer filter per se (which, true, is beneficial, but not the most important thing -- again, IMHO).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 21:58 UTC as 31st comment
Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »