Roman Korcek

Lives in Slovak Republic Slovak Republic
Joined on Dec 19, 2009

Comments

Total: 155, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

StevenE: People question m4/3 format for good reason when we see lenses like this at US$1300.
This is equivalent to a FF 24 f/2.8, which can be had for Canon at US$550, less than half the price and it is smaller and lighter. Even more significantly, you can get a FF 24mm f/1.4 from Sigma for US$850, that's a US$450 savings, and there is, and likely never will be, a m4/3 equivalent to that!
So, although it has it's uses, micro 4/3 is a compromised format

@Great Bustard
Well, your link says something different than you do in this thread. I agree with your link. I disagree with what you are saying here.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: People question m4/3 format for good reason when we see lenses like this at US$1300.
This is equivalent to a FF 24 f/2.8, which can be had for Canon at US$550, less than half the price and it is smaller and lighter. Even more significantly, you can get a FF 24mm f/1.4 from Sigma for US$850, that's a US$450 savings, and there is, and likely never will be, a m4/3 equivalent to that!
So, although it has it's uses, micro 4/3 is a compromised format

@Great Bustard

"Pixel count has little to do with overall noise"
Huh? You specifically say in your post in your first link, "So, are more pixels more noisy than fewer pixels? For sensors of the same generation, yes they are." I am not really sure why you are now saying the exact opposite.

"In short, it's the total amount of light making up the photo that matters."
Let's take 1 kilogram of light and shine it onto an area covered by
- 4 pixels
- 1048576 pixels
Which of the resulting two images will be noisier?

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: People question m4/3 format for good reason when we see lenses like this at US$1300.
This is equivalent to a FF 24 f/2.8, which can be had for Canon at US$550, less than half the price and it is smaller and lighter. Even more significantly, you can get a FF 24mm f/1.4 from Sigma for US$850, that's a US$450 savings, and there is, and likely never will be, a m4/3 equivalent to that!
So, although it has it's uses, micro 4/3 is a compromised format

@Great Bustard
"Again, not just for DOF, but also for light gathering. For example, 12mm f/1.4 1/100 on mFT puts the same amount of light on the sensor as 24mm f/2.8 1/100 on FF"

This is only valid if you are talking about the same amount of megapixels on both, which would mean 4x smaller pixels on the mFT sensor. If you keep the pixel dimensions the same (ie. "cut" 1/4th of the FF to get a mFT) then your comparison is not valid, at least with regard to noise.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 12:30 UTC
On article Road tripping through New South Wales, Australia (31 comments in total)

I'd love to read an article on how the first image ("Sydney Opera House and Harbor Bridge") has been post-processed.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 11:39 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Roman Korcek: What does DP stand for, please? I assume it's not "Digital Photographer" and a quick Google search was... not helpful.

Thank you all! :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 10:33 UTC

What does DP stand for, please? I assume it's not "Digital Photographer" and a quick Google search was... not helpful.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 14:21 UTC as 8th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Roman Korcek: Just like in the terrible Nikon interview of 2014 ( http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7726365599/photokina-2014-nikon-interview-large-sensor-mirrorless-could-be-a-solution ), Nikon is still carefully studying market demand before they do anything at all. For everything. For years.

"We will continue to watch the needs of our customers and market trends"
"We are willing to cater to the needs of customers by developing what is required by the market. We’re observing market trends very carefully"
"Yes we have plans for more lenses, if necessary after analyzing the needs of the market."

It took them quite a lot of years of careful market analysis to find out customers would really really like a new D300S.

I am not saying Nikon did not bring out any new models at all, I just don't really think any of those models (before the D500) would be considered a D300S replacement.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 12:40 UTC

Just like in the terrible Nikon interview of 2014 ( http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7726365599/photokina-2014-nikon-interview-large-sensor-mirrorless-could-be-a-solution ), Nikon is still carefully studying market demand before they do anything at all. For everything. For years.

"We will continue to watch the needs of our customers and market trends"
"We are willing to cater to the needs of customers by developing what is required by the market. We’re observing market trends very carefully"
"Yes we have plans for more lenses, if necessary after analyzing the needs of the market."

It took them quite a lot of years of careful market analysis to find out customers would really really like a new D300S.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 12:23 UTC as 69th comment | 3 replies
On article UPDATED: Sony a6300 real-world samples (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Hands up if you preferred the old sample gallery format?

Nope, I can *finally* filter by ISO.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

h2k: I labored through this interview.

I am not sure - did he *say* something?

Just like in the terrible Nikon interview of 2014 (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7726365599/photokina-2014-nikon-interview-large-sensor-mirrorless-could-be-a-solution), Canon is carefully studying market demand. For everything. For years.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 21:29 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

telecomprofi: seems like Panasonic paid only for fz1000 ad on this occasion ;-) he hehe

How much have you been paid by BIG CAMERA for this comment?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

Roman Korcek: Say I would like to have the 50-100 mm in Alpha mount. Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma Mount Conversion Service?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/mount-conversion-service

I see, thanks all.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:23 UTC

Say I would like to have the 50-100 mm in Alpha mount. Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma Mount Conversion Service?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/mount-conversion-service

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 UTC as 40th comment | 3 replies
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suntan: So these spectabular lenses need vignette correction? That's kind of a letdown.

@Satyaa
"Not for G Master lenses, he explains. ‘Light doesn’t separate nicely into red, green and blue' (the color channels that most cameras capture, and which can be adjusted, relative to one another, to correct lateral CA). It’s a continuum with each wavelength being displaced slightly differently. ‘To get the really high contrast we wanted in G Master, we had to suppress it in the lens.’"

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 01:31 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.

95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.

And no links to their work either.

What we are saying is that no matter who says, "Canon rulezz, Nikon suxx", his claim is nonsense, no matter if he has any images to show or not, no matter how gorgeous his images might be.

The same way, if someone points out that eg. another crop might benefit the composition, that claim may be true regardless of the images in his gallery.

Does everyone really disagree with this assessment? Do so many people really regard the messenger more than the message?

ETA:
To me it seems many people are defending the position that if someone says something negative, he must be wrong, unless he is a good photographer, then he might be right, even if the message is exactly the same.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 23:05 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.

95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.

And no links to their work either.

I wonder, how come so many people misunderstand the point?

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 22:59 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.

95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.

And no links to their work either.

@GaryJP
Yes, it said exactly what I repeated later, that people badmouthing other people often have no images of their own to show. As I said, while that might be true, it does not have any impact on the badmouthing itself. Perhaps instead of pasting quotes not relevant to the topic you could voice your opinion on that.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 14:19 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.

95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.

And no links to their work either.

@GaryJP
After your comments and claims you recommend this book to me? You said you wanted to see examples of where a commenter is coming from and after I gave you one you changed the subject? I see a discussion with you is not possible, so only to summarize, I claim that a commenter's images have absolutely no bearing on his comments being true or not (unless he talks about his own images, of course), you claim the opposite. We shall let it rest at that, then.

EDIT: Perhaps you are just saying that badmouthing commenters usually have no images in their galleries, which, as @crashpc pointed out earlier might be true but it does not make their comments any more or less true, thus is of no relevance to the comments itselves.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:23 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.

95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.

And no links to their work either.

@GaryJP
So "Canon sucks, Nikon rulezz" is a respectable comment as long as the commenter's galleries are full of marvelous images?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 10:02 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rob Kearney (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.

95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.

And no links to their work either.

You have already stated that in your initial comment.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 12:56 UTC
Total: 155, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »