TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 736, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Not a Nikon 1 user, but I thought the review may be a little harsh...this camera has possibilities if it came with the 20 meg Sony sensor, which Nikon can do easily since Aptina is into automobile products now.

And btw, the NXMini uses the same Sony sensor, but applies horrible RAW NR (smearing) at higher ISO's.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 07:58 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Not a Nikon 1 user, but I thought the review may be a little harsh...this camera has possibilities if it came with the 20 meg Sony sensor, which Nikon can do easily since Aptina is into automobile products now.

And we can all compare the RAW files ourselves and notice the V3 performs worse, also at higher ISO's with a $900 lens. No amount of reliance on unknown or private sources will change the simple facts staring us in the eyes.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 07:28 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: Hmm, can't see many early adopters. Nikon, get a decent sensor, quick!

Better still, put all this excellent technology in an APSC body. You would probably sell millions.

The RAW files are not better than the Dpreview claims which they supported with samples shot in various light conditions (typical deep shadows in typical indoor light included, unlike Imaging Resource). Shot with a $900 lens too, so no excuses possible there either.

Relatively high shadow noise at all ISO's and an early colour shift in shadows at higher ISO's.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 07:24 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Let's hope Google unhides the "limit background/crapware" feature that Google hid with the move from Android 4.1 to 4.2 and higher.

Plenty of free apps out there to tell you what's running in the background and what's loaded at startup. Including control over those apps. The feature you were referring to is for cached programs anyway, which has little relationship to CPU power being used. My cached apps rarely use more than 5% CPU, mostly well below 2%.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 08:27 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Let's hope Google unhides the "limit background/crapware" feature that Google hid with the move from Android 4.1 to 4.2 and higher.

If 10 seconds of effort to unhide developer options is too much work....

And for recent phones high on (free) RAM, there are more downsides to limiting the standard amount of cached programs (such as much longer load times of frequently used apps and higher battery drain as a result) than benefits.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

Stu 5: Why on earth compare it to the 5D MKIII when everyone knows the 6D is the better Canon camera at high iso of the two.

" So far, the A7s isn't an option to choose on the DPR Noise widget"

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7s&attr13_1=nikon_df&attr13_2=nikon_d4s&attr13_3=canon_eos6d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.16957916159407324&y=-0.86174194674667

A7S in RAW vs the best sensors available, minus the 1DX.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

igor_s: Simulation of higher ISOs by brightening in the post decreases the SNR, therefore, the comparison is not fair. However, the 7S has lower level of shadow noise, and therefore should do better at extra high ISOs (where the sensor is poorly illuminated). Perhaps natively by about 1 eV if in "boosted" ISO tests it wins by 2 eV.
Unfortunately the above applies only to ISOs above 51200 (if you ever need it and satisfied by the quality). At lower and moderate ISOs the A7S loses to the a7R even in shadows. A specific ultra-low light camera.

Practically every camera does digital boosting of sensitivities at the highest ISO's. For just noise comparisons at extreme ISO's, there's little difference whether done in camera or in post processing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen123: There’s a pretty big Sony vs. Canon question in what color those arches bait up and left of center look to the human eye. Sony has them white and a bit blown out. Canon has them warm and detailed. If they are cream or yellow to the human eye then Sony is screwing up. If not, Canon is screwing up. It’s not like it’s a small difference.

You do realize that you're actually judging the Adobe calibration for preliminary support of the A7S?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

jenbenn: What you forgot to mention is that the 5D has vastly superior dynamic range in all shots. The highlights in the sony raws are all blown out while the canon retains considerably more detail.

BTW I own a 5d III and a Sony A7 (non-r). The canon consistantly delivers less noise and better dynamic range at all isos above 400. The exception being at iso 100 and iso200 where the sony has less shadow noise if you need to lift the shadows dramatically.

To complete this: Any test site (hint: DXO) rating the canon sensor far below the sony sensor, should start using their cameras to take photos instead of performing absurd measurebating tests which do not translate into real life.

People still don't seem to understand that highlight headroom in RAW tells you little about DR, more about metering or how the manufacturer and RAW developers respectively decided to implement metering compared to middle gray plus saturation poit and the default gamma curve.

DR is mostly defined by the shadow range (see also the DXO explanations), highlight range is usually a choice of exposure (relative to the saturation point of the sensor).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: DXOMark's claimed 1.5 EV dynamic range advantage of A7S over 5DIII does not seem to be reflected in this test. If anything, it appears the other way around.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___949_795

How did you determine the amount of DR?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteB: I think that's pretty impressive. Even taking into account down-sizing the other images it's clearly the cleanest from any FF sensor at high ISOs. I think this might have some potential from a macro/close-up photography perspective. Light is always a challenge, and often you have to use flash to freeze motion, or handhold. The big problem with flash in daylight is fall off over distance and black backgrounds. This means the background all has to be close to the subject to prevent it, which restricts how you shoot. I think this type of high ISO performance is maybe getting to the level where with noise reduction software, it might allow a type of photograph previously impossible in field macro photography. We'll have to wait and see if it's there yet. It'd be a lot better if it was A7 price.

The A6000, A580, 5N and now the A7S are all among the highest or highest performing cameras in their respective classes at the time of release, when it comes to high ISO peformances. No talk about incomparable samples or imaginative comparisons will change that.

You still haven't shares apples vs apples comparisons between the D4S/Df and A7S.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 00:37 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: So, I guess there really is an advantage to having a few nice big fat pixels, rather than having a whole lot more teeny tiny ones.....

" But I've shot with the D4s into deep shadows and the Nikon vastly out performs the A7s."

Weird claims if you can't back them up and haven't shot the A7S under similar circumstances. In other words, you have nothing to back it up. So far everything available contradicts your claims too. It's even weirder if we take into account that you often claim you don't believe in resizing (normalization) for comparison purposes, which puts both the Df and D4S at an even greater disadvantage.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 00:28 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Interesting. There's barely any difference between the 7S and the Df at ISO 102 400, especially at the same print size. OK, the Sony is better at ISO 204 800 but I wouldn't want to use 200k and 400k options anyway.

Now imagine saying the above in 2005, that would be fun eh?

In all seriousness, 7S at 400k looks like my old Canon A610 at ISO 400 or Nikon D100 at ISO 6400. So, 1000x more sensitivity than my first serious digicam. Not bad, not bad.

In the low light setup, the shadows from the A7S are cleaner at ISO 102k than those from the Df at ISO 51k. See the blue noise in darker areas, typical for low light.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 18:39 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: So, I guess there really is an advantage to having a few nice big fat pixels, rather than having a whole lot more teeny tiny ones.....

Comparing RAW files from completely different light setups and completely different scenes makes little sense. Here it shows that all other cameras, including the D4S fall apart in deep shadows well before the A7S, especially using a light source that is short in the blue spectrum (thus more amplification and more blueish noise) , which is typical for low light and indoor scenes.

You'd need very coloured glasses not to see that. ISO 51k deep shadows using incandescent light, look similar to those from the D4S at ISO 25k, which is in line with DXO DR and SNR plots (1-5% gray, not the 18% middle gray ones obviously).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
On DxOMark Mobile report: Samsung Galaxy S5 post (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

natna: "Noise levels are well controlled in low-light, albeit then with a noticeable loss of detail."

hahahahahahahhaha

And anyone with half a brain realizes that you need to read those graphs in conjunction with the texture/detail graphs throughout varying light levels.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2014 at 15:05 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (714 comments in total)
In reply to:

ekaton: Put a decent lens on the a6000 and it leaves mft and Fuji in the dust, at least for stills and irrespective of price.

DXO does not look at resolution differences and the individual measured results (graphs) show that the new 24 MP sensor is a bit of a step up from the old one. In practise even more because DXO does not account for the visual impact of different noise patterns, where the old sensor lost points at higher ISO's (more blotchy, harder to clean up).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 14:18 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)
In reply to:

b craw: Directed at the many members who provide conscienciously developed opinions, informed by knowledge and experience - thank you. I learn alot from this, you. And DPR, you do a fine job in much the same manner.

As for the sizable subset of members who insist on endlessly pecking at the same small nut, relentless in their denial of the latitudes of subjective appeal, function, etc., I'm at a loss. An even more baffling subset to the subset are those individuals who perhaps own a camera, and are not without some knowledge, but seem like they may have suspended all personal photography until such a time when a camera is produced that is so perfect in every way that it may make any creative effort on their part redundant.

If you look at the back of the camera, it should be pretty obvious why the EVF has to pop up first. Unless you're ok with an increase in height and width to about A6000 proportions, in which case we're talking about a whole different category of cameras to begin with.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 09:27 UTC
In reply to:

btwango: Isn't "fixed-mirror DSLR" an oxymoron?

And again, a reflex is a reflex. It's still a reflex now, even if the purpose is different. A lot of words cover different undelying technologies now than they did when they first appeared, in part because of evolving technologies. For example radio. Which now also covers devices delivering a signal through cable too or even just cable (for example DAB radio).

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: DPR: lame attempt to pan a new term: "fixed mirror DSLR". Nope, sorry. It's not a SLR camera. It's an SLT. Nothing reflects off its mirror.

Something does reflect off its mirror, commonly referred to as light. A (dimmer) mirror image projected onto the AF sensors.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 08:48 UTC
In reply to:

Archiver: "Pro style movie shooting" with only 60p, 60i and 30p framerates? No 25p, no 24p? Too bad if you're in a PAL country or have to shoot in artificial light with disruptive flicker rates. The addition of 60p is only one step up from Olympus with their insistence on providing only 30p in any of their cameras.

It can shoot 24p too and 50p/50i/25p for PAL regions. See the official Sony page.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 08:44 UTC
Total: 736, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »