Prognathous

Prognathous

Lives in Israel Israel
Joined on Nov 24, 2003

Comments

Total: 196, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JL Auch: Would love a "Ricoh GR Pro" kit.

Slightly larger interchangeable camera, with built in EVF (or even better OVF with electric overlay), small compact flash, and 28, 35, 50mm. Premium build (weather sealed).

I would settle for a GR III: More megapixels, much improved auto focus, built in EVF (again would actually prefer OVF with electronic brightlines), 28mm and 35mm versions, Auto Iso in manual (with cap ability to cap ISO in manual and TAV.) Flip screen (not fully articulated).

I would buy 3 instantly.

What you're describing is basically a Mark II of the Ricoh GXR.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 14:54 UTC

Impressive camera, though I'm sure 50K USD is going to be difficult to justify to pros who currently use other medium format digital cameras and consider an upgrade.

An improved Pentax 645Z + Pixel Shift Resolution mode (like their K-3 II) would provide similar, if not better, results and would likely cost 8K USD or less. For still life in the studio, Pixel Shift won't pose an issue, given that the subject is, well, still.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 11:53 UTC as 48th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Frank_BR: After examining the details of ARW, the Sony RAW format, I am convinced that it is a very good RAW format. In particular, I don't think a lossless RAW is absolutely necessary.

The ARW format has the following strengths:

1) High efficiency, just one byte per pixel
2) effective resolution of 13 bits for small levels
3) great simplicity, which allows on-the-fly encoding
4) virtually invisible artifacts, except in very special cases when artifacts are provoked by a heavy/forced PP

The criticisms of the Sony RAW format are concentrated on item 4, and these criticisms only appeared after a few experiments revealed the visibility of artifacts in underexposed images of startrails that were submitted to strong pushing. It is very important to note here that the artifacts always appeared in combination with noise, which became highly visible because of the pushing.

A proposal to fix the "defect" of the Sony RAW format is next.

On the other hand "solving" it this way would ensure that Sony would continue with this nonsense instead of choosing the obvious and easy solution - offering uncompressed or losslessly compressed RAW.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 21:47 UTC

DPR: Have you asked Sony to provide official response to this article?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 12:58 UTC as 60th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nice money-is-no-object camera. Less appealing if money is of *any* importance (compared to a camera like the Pentax 645z for example, which for all intent is just as capable).

It's even cheaper in Adorama:

http://www.adorama.com/bundles/IPX645Z

Pentax 645Z Medium Format Digital SLR Camera Body
$8,499.00
Pentax 645D FA 55mm f/2.8 AL [IF] SDM AW Lens
$1,196.95
- $1,196.95
FREE

Bundle Total
$8,499.00

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 22:49 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nice money-is-no-object camera. Less appealing if money is of *any* importance (compared to a camera like the Pentax 645z for example, which for all intent is just as capable).

I didn't imagine the price:

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-645Z-Camera-3-Inch-Black/dp/B00LHWDZUC
This item: Pentax 645Z 51MP SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD- Body (Black) $7,725.26
Pentax D FA 645 55mm f/2.8 AL [IF] SDM AW Lens $865.30

Total: $8590

I couldn't find the 007 on Amazon so I quoted the B&H pre-order price. Are you aware of any special price for it?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nice money-is-no-object camera. Less appealing if money is of *any* importance (compared to a camera like the Pentax 645z for example, which for all intent is just as capable).

The 007 kit with 70mm lens goes for 21.5K USD (preorder at B&H). The 645z with 55mm lens goes for 8.5K USD (Amazon). So yes, it's not 20K difference, but it's still huge.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 19:41 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nice money-is-no-object camera. Less appealing if money is of *any* importance (compared to a camera like the Pentax 645z for example, which for all intent is just as capable).

Scorpius1, please provide a link to a comparison that shows this. I couldn't find any, just people (e.g. luminous-landscape.com Michael Reichmann) saying that there is a slight advantage to Leica, but one that requires "some serious pixel-peeping to see the differences" even at very large print size. If so, I doubt paying $20,000 more for an equivalent kit is justified to anyone who care *at all* about price.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:49 UTC

Nice money-is-no-object camera. Less appealing if money is of *any* importance (compared to a camera like the Pentax 645z for example, which for all intent is just as capable).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 15:14 UTC as 63rd comment | 12 replies

"3D XPoint (pronounced cross-point)" - probably from the mind of the same marketing person who came up with Pentax *ist D (pronounced who-the-hell-knows)...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:51 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

DCSteve: I got the cc: subscription for $100. $8/month -- the cost of a sandwich. Or, put another way, 1/1000 the cost of my camera gear. For that, I get regular updates, a mobile app that allows me to download and edit on the road (with automatic syncing of full-size images when I get home) and a well-established, cross platform software suite. I don't think it's a bad deal.

DCSteve, care to explain *how* you plan to deal with it? Not being able to open your PS projects for editing sounds like a hard to overcome challenge. If you think third party apps would to a good job with this I suggest that you try opening your files with them now. I think you're in for a harsh realization.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:46 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Louis Dallara: Time to look at other software, there cc software sucks.
Rant I hope the fix the broken video driver for LR6 some day soon, there solution was to buy a new $200 video card, they don't support my ATI card and said I have to go to Nvidia /rant

I assume that by "don't support" you mean there's no hardware acceleration, not that the software doesn't work relying on the CPU, correct?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:57 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

DCSteve: I got the cc: subscription for $100. $8/month -- the cost of a sandwich. Or, put another way, 1/1000 the cost of my camera gear. For that, I get regular updates, a mobile app that allows me to download and edit on the road (with automatic syncing of full-size images when I get home) and a well-established, cross platform software suite. I don't think it's a bad deal.

Has Adobe guaranteed that this price will remain forever? Anything in the service contract that prevent them from raising it to whatever they like (gradually or not)?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:54 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gregm61: I've tried all sorts of alternatives. I own DXO Elite and have downloaded an trialed Capture one. Owned the "LE" version of it several years ago. I like Photoshop best. It's $10 a month. I waste 10x or more than that much a month on other "stuff". Photoshop, I use. You either buy it or use something else. That's why the other alternatives exist. There are things in life to get excited and worked up over. This isn't one of those things.

$10 a month doesn't sound much, but if you calculate it as monthly expense for the rest of your life it adds up to a significant amount. It still may be worth it. For many people, mortgage on a house is worth it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:50 UTC
On article Pentax K-3 II added to studio test scene comparison (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pandimonium: It's obvious this is as good and sometimes better than the Nikon D810. It is clearly better than the Olympus pixel shift implementation. When pentax can use the 4th image shot in to fill in movement gaps (were you see pixelated artefacts) at the normal K-3 resolving power, the setting would become more useful for landscape and other situations with limited movements. Maybe they can even make a hand held mode, aligning the layers in camera. This would require some processing power, so maybe in a new generation imaging engine.

Pixel Shift is intended for use on a tripod, where typically low ISO is used, suitable for studio and landscape photography. For handheld high-ISO work there's no question the D810 is a better camera. For low-ISO though, it actually lags the Pentax:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=pentax_k3ii&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=highres&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.09402063866148316&y=0.2988951209544078

It's interesting how the D810 will compare with the upcoming Pentax FF (both with and without Pixel Shift). I wouldn't bet on the Nikon.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2015 at 11:51 UTC
On article Pentax K-3 II added to studio test scene comparison (177 comments in total)

RAW and pixel-shift puts all other cameras in this comparison to shame, very visible in the part with text.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 20:32 UTC as 56th comment | 8 replies
On article Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test (147 comments in total)

What are the pros and cons of this camera compared to Pentax 645Z?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 13:04 UTC as 45th comment | 3 replies

Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 18:05 UTC as 11th comment

Eye detection could have been great for wildlife and pet photography. It's unfortunate that it's limited to human eyes.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2015 at 11:34 UTC as 96th comment | 2 replies

Add a tilting screen and you have the perfect DSLR.

Edit: No built in flash? Bad decision, even if it's useful in only a few cases.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 07:46 UTC as 18th comment
Total: 196, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »