Samuel Dilworth

Samuel Dilworth

Lives in France Paris, France
Joined on Feb 20, 2011

Comments

Total: 450, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Pentax launches K-S1 Sweets Collection article (187 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Why is the pink one photographed with something red? The colours don't match.

It’s a design idea called analogous colours. The likely market for this camera will know all about it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 16:57 UTC
On Pentax launches K-S1 Sweets Collection article (187 comments in total)

Low-end SLRs are deeply uncool. Trying to change that with funky colours seems … optimistic.

(That’s an impressive pentaprism viewfinder at this price, though. Pentax is so weird.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 23:31 UTC as 77th comment
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel L: she is cute.

While I agree with the gist of Joseph’s comments if not his tone, this whole thread is a good reason for the moderators to promptly delete comments like “she is cute”. They have no place here.

And frankly, I prefer you lot when you’re talking about cameras rather than revealing yourselves to be oafs.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 19:29 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: She writes like a 14 year old.

I'm sure she will hate that.

(a) She’s not some witless sycophant in a pointless meeting. Her use of language is therefore perfectly appropriate

(b) Hate in this context refers to a pet hate, not misanthropy. Everything will be alright!

(c) If you think she should couch her opinion of a colour profile in overwrought terms like “discontent”, perhaps you should write crash reports for your local police force instead of lecturing us about language. They love that kind of thing. “At 1405 he disengaged the handbrake and proceeded to turn the key in the ignition …”

(d) She’s a woman, not a female.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 18:28 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion article (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: She writes like a 14 year old.

I'm sure she will hate that.

Baffling comment, except as pure antagonism. The writing is sharp and clear. If it’s remarkable it’s for its merits.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 17:30 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (858 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cubby1: This has to be a bias review; at least to some extent. (Otherwise, why would you offer a counterpoint at the end?) Usually I follow reviews on DPR and Cameralabs as the primary sites, and also look at the others. Generally, except DPR, they all seem to think the G7 X is pretty good, and responsive. And, the images are "excellent". So, who is out of step? This has to be the most negative review I have ever read on DPR. Either you had a bad sample, or you have it in for Canon, or......what?

Someone always cries foul when the merest hint of criticism is voiced in a camera review. But such cries are thoughtless. No camera is flawless, and currently we’re going through a period in which cameras are particularly flawed – out of synch with users’ expectations – hence the crisis in the industry.

While it’s true any camera can take good pictures, we hardly read expert reviews to hear that.

I would have harsher words than Jeff or Richard had for a premium camera that hangs for two seconds after taking a picture … That’s pretty indefensible these days, and DPReview would lose credibility if it didn’t bring that problem to our attention.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 16:55 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (858 comments in total)
In reply to:

Josh152: Wow 2 seconds between shots in raw? My A590IS hacked with chdk to shoot DNG files takes about that long to be ready to shoot again. Just shooting JPEGs it takes slightly less than a second. This kind of performance is understandable for a hacked $100 P&S that's like 6 or 7 years old but not even close to acceptable for a 2014 high end compact camera. Is Canon even trying? Do they not realize they now have real competition in this segment?

I mean the RX100III which uses the same sensor shoots way, way faster and even has a built in evf. All for only $100 more which is more than worth it to get the evf and a reasonable shot to shot delay. Why would anyone buy the G7X over the Sony? The 2 sec shot to shot delay is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

One obvious answer to your last question is: to get a lens that reaches 100 mm-e. The people who want that feature seem to really want it. It may be enough on its own to sell this camera (though I think the G7 X has many other attractions).

Increasingly, though, it looks lazy. And this applies to most cameras from the big makers, from point-and-shoots to high-end SLRs. It’s strange to see no apparent sense of urgency at the helm while these companies watch phones beat them at their own game. Can you imagine Apple or Samsung or Google accepting a two-second lock-up between shots? They’d hang an engineer at noon until that was fixed!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 10:25 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (858 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: 1 second sounds slow, and it is slow (it's actually under 1 second), but I think you should put it into perspective.

It's faster anything canon has ever put out.

My S90 took 3 seconds between shots. The EOS-M was 2-3 seconds. The G1X M2 and canon s120 are both over 1 second per shot. So canon is making progress.

The AF performance is disappointing though. I find that the touch shutter is more accurate than actually using the shutter button.

DPReview actually says it takes *two* seconds from shot to shot in raw (using an ultra-fast memory card).

That is awful, let’s be honest.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 17:23 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (858 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: I cannot understand why any camera, much less a €600 one from a big brand, is slow in 2014. My two-year-old iPhone can take pictures as quickly as I can pump the trigger. SLRs have responded effectively instantly for about a decade, during which time ASICs have advanced enormously. What is the excuse for sluggish response in a brand-new machine designed purely for taking pictures?

I was hopeful that the low battery life of the G7 X (itself not a problem for me) was indicative of significant onboard computing power and an end at last to the slowness that has plagued Canon compacts since the beginning. Evidently not.

A shot-to-shot time of TWO SECONDS (recording raw files with the fastest memory card on the planet) is not just slow but inexcusable. Astonishingly, that’s actually slower than a Panasonic LX3 from 2008 – which I often found frustratingly slow.

If the G7 X is that slow at pushing pixels through its pipeline, it’s probably also slow at switching to playback mode, zooming and panning around photos, etc. The usual stuff that compacts (from Canon and others) are still terrible at.

However, your peculiar wish to defend this sluggishness so energetically perhaps answers my question: some people don’t care about speed and responsiveness. Lucky them. Lucky you!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 17:19 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (858 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: I cannot understand why any camera, much less a €600 one from a big brand, is slow in 2014. My two-year-old iPhone can take pictures as quickly as I can pump the trigger. SLRs have responded effectively instantly for about a decade, during which time ASICs have advanced enormously. What is the excuse for sluggish response in a brand-new machine designed purely for taking pictures?

I was hopeful that the low battery life of the G7 X (itself not a problem for me) was indicative of significant onboard computing power and an end at last to the slowness that has plagued Canon compacts since the beginning. Evidently not.

Try reading my comment. I never mentioned autofocus, and I specifically said the G7 X battery life wouldn’t be a problem for me.

My question remains.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 16:51 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: I have to ask: what is the intriguing book in the fourth picture on the first page?

Nice. A fine background!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (858 comments in total)

I cannot understand why any camera, much less a €600 one from a big brand, is slow in 2014. My two-year-old iPhone can take pictures as quickly as I can pump the trigger. SLRs have responded effectively instantly for about a decade, during which time ASICs have advanced enormously. What is the excuse for sluggish response in a brand-new machine designed purely for taking pictures?

I was hopeful that the low battery life of the G7 X (itself not a problem for me) was indicative of significant onboard computing power and an end at last to the slowness that has plagued Canon compacts since the beginning. Evidently not.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 16:28 UTC as 62nd comment | 12 replies
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (148 comments in total)

I have to ask: what is the intriguing book in the fourth picture on the first page?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 16:05 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
On Ghost Town: Shooting in Kolmanskop article (68 comments in total)

Many of these compositions are very carefully done and consequently interesting to look at. The last one is brilliant, but a couple of the others also strike me as designs I would have taken an age to find – if I could find them at all.

However, the compressed subject brightness range in combination with preternatural saturation is a look I have not come to like despite years of exposure to it.

Still, I do like these articles by Erez Marom. Keep them coming.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 10:39 UTC as 15th comment
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

mais51: Now you know why you have to pay $15 for a movie ticket. Wonder how many layers of diamond elements in that lens.

They won’t sell anything like 1000 of these, ThePhilips. Where would that kind of demand come from? This is niche among niche stuff.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 08:01 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: Thank you Dpreview for giving us some raw conversion examples. Very useful indeed. It would be nice if you had a more systematic way of presenting these images, consistently showing unprocessed and processed images as few examples indeed are, but no one at low iso. A few base iso with heavily pushed shadows would have been nice to see as that is what 99% of the people here are curious to see.
On a different note it seems to me that shadow recovery has indeed improved considerably but again not easy to estimate from these examples. Some of the very contrasty conditions look to me as adequately handled with DR. I cannot detect banding even in the high iso samples. Keeping my fingers crossed...

Have a look at 7DII_beta_ISO100_030A9615-ACR.

It’s an ISO 100 photo of a rusting pickup with sunlit countryside behind. The shadows have been pushed hard enough to see underneath the truck – which is itself in the shade – even though the exposure, while hot, kept decent detail in the sunlit forest behind.

Certainly there is some noise, but it’s not meaningfully worse than that produced by the vaunted Sony sensors in similar situations. The Sony sensors only gain a useful advantage when you push even deeper shadows than these even harder – which is why professional photographers aren’t throwing out their Canons en masse.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 10:37 UTC

I agree about the camera needing a GPS receiver. I cannot understand why manufacturers are putting Wi-Fi in these compacts before GPS.

Something is horribly wrong with the photo on page 5. There must be some mistake.

Thanks for the raw files in DNG format – that’s a nice touch – but why are they so small in file size and pixel count? It may be related, but I can’t find anything in focus in the ISO 250 example.

You have to wonder how this frumpy camera will fare now that the LX100 is muscling onto the scene. Price cuts ahoy?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 10:19 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

goblover: Is it just me, or the Canon G7x sample was motion blurred? And the LX100? If you see the top left and bottom right, the red water colour paint, and colour circle on the bottom left, the letters are blurred. The circle also not a full circle, a bit distorted. I'm not the expert, maybe DP Reviewers can help clarify why is that?

Lensjoy: the scene is square, so it was parallel to the sensor. The lens is just not very good and additionally not very well built. This is common in tiny zoom lenses with optical image stabilisation, plastic telescoping barrels, and low cost. And this particular lens pushes everything to new extremes: image circle, speed, range, compactness, etc. It’s bound to have weaknesses.

In the real world the misalignment is not very important, since you’re just as likely to photograph a non-parallel scene as one parallel to the image plane – with the notable exception of distant scenes.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.

I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'

With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.

Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.

With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.

No one can stop the relentless march of technology.

Marcin: sorry, I was being sarcastic. In fact, digital photography ended up costing much more than film photography for most people – so much so that it funded a huge boom in the industry.

Of course a National Geographic photojournalist who used 200 rolls of Kodachrome per assignment did save money with digital, but most of us didn’t do that.

I still shoot film, by the way. It’s fun. But so is perfectly fine-tuning a noise-free digital image on the computer.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.

I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'

With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.

Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.

With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.

No one can stop the relentless march of technology.

The money saved by going digital is why the photography industry experienced a massive boom over the last decade. Ahem.

Personally, I’ve spent far more per year since adopting digital. But the power of a Curves control makes it all seem worthwhile.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 14:58 UTC
Total: 450, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »