Prognathous

Prognathous

Lives in Israel Israel
Joined on Nov 24, 2003

Comments

Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (319 comments in total)

Very nice camera and an interesting preview. Also loved seeing some classic dcresource.com scenes in the shooting experience page.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 23:28 UTC as 61st comment
On Ricoh announces medium-format Pentax 645Z news story (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I think it was supposed to be already mirroless, with a nice EVF, and its sensor 56 x 41.5mm, as it was the 645 film frame area. 33 x 44mm looks like what the APS format is to the 135 full-frame, a cropped sensor to cut their investment some slack. Not a true medium-medium. Just medium.

DarkShift, if you're stitching A7R images, why do you need a Canon TS-E lens? You can use any lens and get the same resolution.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: "The Micro Four Thirds system, originally developed by Olympus and Panasonic, now lists Carl Zeiss, Astro Design, SVS-Vistek, Kenko Tokina, Cosina, Schneider-Kreuznach, JK Imaging, Tamron, View Plus, Photron and Blackmagic Designs as members. Sigma also makes lenses for the system."

I thought Kodak is a part of the consortium too. They have their own m4/3 out now too.

Joe, if the new sensor size is adopted as an official part of the MFT specs, would you still consider JVC to be merely a "licensee" and not a contributing member in a consortium?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 06:15 UTC
On Pentax K-3 preview (961 comments in total)
In reply to:

veroman: I might add that I find the new "studio scene" pretty dreadful. I prefer the older one by a mile. At the very least, dpreview should take the the best of the old one and combine it with some new but relevant ideas.

I agree. The new scene is so bad that I now very rarely compare the output of cameras. The problem is that the old one had issues with DOF, but it's possible to work around them by shooting it using a large format scanning back, printing the result on a super high resolution poster and using that for the studio shots. This way, you get great looking scene that has no DOF issues.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2014 at 16:08 UTC
On Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review preview (524 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jokica: If Samsung is my company, I would buy Pentax along with Ricoh.

ermm... what?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 12:53 UTC
On Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review preview (524 comments in total)

DPR: According to your own defined terminology, there's no such thing as a "First Impressions Review". Quote:

"misuse of the word 'review' is beginning to tarnish the hard work put into reviews here and on other sites"

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2006/03/08/reviewdefinition

This is why you committed to use only the terms "Review", "Preview" and "Hands-on Preview". Stand by your word.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 10:21 UTC as 100th comment
On Nikon D610 Review preview (286 comments in total)

Yawn... what a boring camera. It would have been sufficient to say that it has no standing quality issues and just direct readers to the D600 review. Not worth investing any efforts in actually doing a full review IMHO.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2014 at 17:00 UTC as 82nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

HappyVan: What a strange conclusion?

Sensor size is 58% of FF. Resolution (19mp) is 53% of D800. So, small improvement over D800 is expected. NO big deal.

The real deal breaker is the price and weight (5 lb).

Especially when pixel pitch has practically no relation to image quality, while sensor size has a very clear and direct relation.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Very interesting interview, but I wish he was asked about the aspect of compatibility of Sigma lenses with new bodies. Unlike Tamron and Tokina lenses which are practically always compatible with newer bodies (same as lenses from the camera brands), Sigma lenses frequently have compatibility issues, requiring them to be "re-chipped" or updated if the lens is recent enough. If the lens is old, then no such luck. Either use it with an old body, or try selling it to someone who does.

Is the reason for these issues the use of reverse engineering instead of getting the specs from the camera brands and paying royalties? This is the most common assumption, but it would have been interesting to hear the CEO take on this.

BTW, fitting lenses with a common micro-USB socket could have made updating lenses easier, more accessible and less costly than having to buy a dedicated USB Mount Dock. Hopefully they add it in future lenses.

That's a good point. Do you happen to know if Tamron and Tokina have communication with camera manufacturers? If they don't, then we can only assume that the quality of reverse engineering done by Sigma is lower than the other lens brands, otherwise they won't be such a difference in compatibility. If these brands do get the specs and pay royalties, then this is a solid reason to pay more for their lenses (compared to Sigma).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 05:14 UTC

Very interesting interview, but I wish he was asked about the aspect of compatibility of Sigma lenses with new bodies. Unlike Tamron and Tokina lenses which are practically always compatible with newer bodies (same as lenses from the camera brands), Sigma lenses frequently have compatibility issues, requiring them to be "re-chipped" or updated if the lens is recent enough. If the lens is old, then no such luck. Either use it with an old body, or try selling it to someone who does.

Is the reason for these issues the use of reverse engineering instead of getting the specs from the camera brands and paying royalties? This is the most common assumption, but it would have been interesting to hear the CEO take on this.

BTW, fitting lenses with a common micro-USB socket could have made updating lenses easier, more accessible and less costly than having to buy a dedicated USB Mount Dock. Hopefully they add it in future lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 04:05 UTC as 20th comment | 5 replies

Is Cosina a more significant lens maker than Tokina?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 10:01 UTC as 61st comment | 5 replies

I like that the screen is now tiltable and stays aligned with the center of the lens. Compared to the side-hinged design that Canon normally uses, the new design is much more convenient when shooting from waist level and when shooting macros.

The flash looks a bit odd, as if it could support bounce flash shooting. This would have been great, but since it's not mentioned in the press release I guess it's not supported (which is not a surprise, as only a handful of cameras had this feature).

Dropping the poor OVF in favor of an add-on EVF is a very good move, as long as the EVF is priced reasonably.

All in all, a nice upgrade compared to the previous model.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 07:50 UTC as 52nd comment
In reply to:

yabokkie: a funny design that is against the basics of camera design.

Other than looks, what issues do you see?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2014 at 09:33 UTC

Ugliest camera ever?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2014 at 08:25 UTC as 276th comment | 2 replies
On Tamron develops 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 superzoom for APS-C SLRs news story (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

teos: "Super zoom" is USELESS!! I used several of them all with very high CA at corners. They are for amateurs, but not for enthusiasts & professionals. I ended up selling all, and continue with standard zoom & prime lenses.

Antony, see other comments about quality. Used right (optimal aperture + optical correction during RAW conversion) superzoom lenses can deliver decent results, enough to give you no reason to complain unless you pixel peep.

A bridge camera is severely limited by its sensor. There's no 1/2.7" sensor that can match the noise, dynamic range, colors and tonality of a modern APS-C sensor (and I'm talking about low-ISO here). Nothing even comes close, and this is also true for the larger P&S sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 14:18 UTC
On Tamron develops 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 superzoom for APS-C SLRs news story (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

teos: "Super zoom" is USELESS!! I used several of them all with very high CA at corners. They are for amateurs, but not for enthusiasts & professionals. I ended up selling all, and continue with standard zoom & prime lenses.

As for which lenses to carry, I'm going abroad in a couple of weeks (4 day trip to Cambodia) and I'm likely to leave my 17-50/2.8, 20/1.8, 50/1.7, 60/2.0 Macro, 90/2.8 Macro, 100-300/4.0 at home, and only carry my 18-270 and 8mm fish-eye with me. In other trips I select a different combination of lenses, depending on estimated needs. I don't blindly take my entire "arsenal" everywhere I go. Do I ever miss lenses that I left behind? Sure. But just as frequently my back tells me that I took too much with me. Compromises...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 12:14 UTC
On Tamron develops 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 superzoom for APS-C SLRs news story (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

teos: "Super zoom" is USELESS!! I used several of them all with very high CA at corners. They are for amateurs, but not for enthusiasts & professionals. I ended up selling all, and continue with standard zoom & prime lenses.

Teos, an "Amateur" is any user who doesn't make a living out of a given activity (in this case photography), representing the vast majority of dpreview.com readers and the target audience of this lens. I don't see where Tamron claimed this lens is intended for professional use (as in "intended for those who do make a living from photography"). Rest assured that amateurs outnumber professionals on this site by a large margin, and that many of them do actually use RAW. A common term for this group is "Enthusiasts" and you'd be surprised how many of them take their hobby very seriously, even if they decide not to carry all their lenses with them when traveling.

As for using f/8 for travel (and street) photography, I suggest you search the web for "f/8-and-be-there". Aperture control (beyond f/8) doesn't dictate the quality of the picture nor the capabilities of the photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 12:01 UTC
On Tamron develops 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 superzoom for APS-C SLRs news story (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: So slooow, hardly usable. The FF version is so much better.

Hardly usable? Do you mostly shoot handheld at night? If so, then this is for sure not a suitable lens. In daylight you can normally use it at its optimal aperture and still get reasonable shutter speed and low ISO.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 11:19 UTC
On Tamron develops 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 superzoom for APS-C SLRs news story (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

fakuryu: Too bad, Tamron is snubbing the Pentax-K mount again. Given that this lens is splash proof, it makes perfect sense for Pentax users who wants one travel zoom lens because of the affordable weather sealed bodies.

Carl, it's easy to explain. Tamron probably doesn't think that return on investment is high enough to justify producing this lens in K-mount. Sony A-mount is probably borderline too (Tokina doesn't make most of its lenses in this mount either, for the same reason).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 11:17 UTC
On Tamron develops 16-300mm F3.5-6.3 superzoom for APS-C SLRs news story (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

camcom12: This focal range has to give in to some optical compromises. Handy? Yes. Low distortion & 'sharp' ? We'll see. I would have preferred a 16-180mm (or 15-140mm?) with potentially smaller size & higher IQ for the same price. The 16mm end is the seller on this one, so it should do well.

We know ''Super' zooms often require chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting and contrast corrections, and bodies do not internally compensate third party lenses (except for CA, sometimes). So will this lens be convenient? Out in the field absolutely. But the post processing required somewhat cancels out this convenience. My congrats to Tamron for offering this unique product.

You can use third party RAW conversion tools such as DxO Optics Pro to get automatic optical correction for third party lenses. No need to use the camera manufacturer's software. Granted such corrections increase processing time, but if you're batch processing it's far from being an annoyance.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 11:15 UTC
Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »