Lives in Romania Bucure?ti, Romania
Joined on Apr 8, 2009


Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On Sony SLT-A77 II First Impressions Review preview (674 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Glam: They forget to mention the fps when shooting 14bit RAW.
I heard that the burst can last up to 26 RAW shots, then slows down.

To me, that is the more important metric.
And we'll just have to wait for good comparisons to judge IQ.

Also, they don't mention if only the first shot gets AF, or the entire burst of shots gets AF.

I shoot (mainly) airshows, and there you have a lot of sky (of which you want at least a bit of colour, so over-exposure must be kept in check) and usually the plane belly contains at least parts with very dark shadows; 14bit RAW is a must, and every bit counts (pun intended).
More important... If the RAW files from A77II are "cooked" (noise reduction, or compression) then it's a dead camera already.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2014 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: LOL love the we need autofocus comments, they crack me up. If you need A/F for a 12mm wide angle, then you should probably not be in photography LOL

Well, I've taken photos of kids only once, and that was for a friend.
But I've been dozens of times in the middle of the dancers (paid photog), and that was since before anybody could get their paws on a full-frame under 5000$; hence, the Tokina 12-24 use.
BTW, even if I have no use for video footage (or I can't be bothered by it; leaving it to the young guns), still I can see a flaw in the logic for a stabilization system for UWA: of course, it's... video. Even with a fisheye, you still see the small jerks ;)
(and no, using a mFT or a Pentax with IBS for video isn't really a solution).
Anybody trying to bash Nikon for puting AF on their 14-24? Or stabilization on their 16-35? Crickets? :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 04:35 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: LOL love the we need autofocus comments, they crack me up. If you need A/F for a 12mm wide angle, then you should probably not be in photography LOL

Actually, from a gross oversight, he proves his point... but not quite. While yes, you *can* count on a super-wideangle to provide a very large DOF, at f/2.0 all bets are off. And while kids play nicely at a distance, in the sun, the huge DOF covers the problem. But... and it's a big BUTT ;) here: <b>the oversight</b>.
Meaning, with my Tokina 12-24 (almost always glued to 12mm), at f/4.0 I kinda need to push the ISO to more than reasonable, while being in the middle of a dance floor, for example. Action at one to two meters away, semi-dark... f/2.0 would be damn welcome to get at least 1/100s while still under ISO3200. And at f/2.0, short distance, you can bet your amateur photographer licence ;) that you NEED to be in focus. Wide open and zone focusing is just begging for the right moment to be thrown away, in the pile of junk "almost focused" photos.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

photofan1986: 1000 bucks for a 70-300 4.5-5.6 lens? What exactly do they smoke at Nikon's? I might be what they smoke, that is :D

And, more importantly, all people forgot something: while it's an incremental update from the full-format (FX) 70-300VR, it still has to cover only a much, much smaller sensor (2.7x smaller). So why the fsck is it NOT at least f/2.8 constant, and why still so big?
The price is not that outrageous, if (and only if) it offers at least as good quality as the newish 70-200 f/4VR. Still, 500$ would be the max price that would get me to buy it (and a V3 camera, but at a quarter of the official price).
And yes, price does everything... An unproven system, way too small sensor (I love DX, wouldn't really buy FX again), and they don't try to get it in the hands of the shooters; they basically try to stop you from buying it... So, while I might be interested to at least try it, I would *never* give even half the marketed amount of dollar$$.
P.S.: while we're at it... They insist on converting dollars to euros at an outrageous parity. For that difference amount, one can buy a plane ticket!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 18:52 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: a quick summary article (596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Blackraven: Lordy lord! There are a lot of trolls out today! The camera looks great and is extremely-well sensor, fast focusing, touch-screen, wifi, articulating LCD, EVF, new lenses......... WOW
Those of us who are keeping up with technology will know that the IQ/sensor size ratio is improving with each generation. The V1 had pretty good IQ that is good enough for most "consumers". It certainly could print 16x24" size prints without any problem. This new sensor will certainly be an improvement on the V2's.
The styling is many many notches above the V2. If the materials and surface finishes matches the high-level of styling then we're talking about a premium product.
There's a good lens choice from regular speed to fast lenses that are small and good to excellent optical-quality.
The price is a little high for me now but i hope this will come down over time. I'm keeping my eye on this one for sure.

IQ/sensor size: any improvement in a tiny sensor would be applied to a large(r) sensor too. Sure, we can go all the way to ultra-large sensors found in satellites (not stoping for puny medium-formats), but... Let's face it: while the Nikon1 cameras are good enough for facebook, they were artificially kept down under APS-C/DX.
And as someone mentioned already... They will go the way of the Pronea bird ;) (google it, it's a revealing story about another resoundig fail line from Nikon).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 18:38 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: a quick summary article (596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: From the minds that brought us the Pronea.

Perfect equivalent! Less is more now, exactly like it was then: less camera for us, more money for Nikon.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 05:50 UTC
On Am I missing something here? article (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Richard,
You missed the Nikkor 18.5mm f1.8 in your list of enthusiast lenses.
It's hard to take your opinions seriously Richard, when you don't even bother to vet your research before you go about bashing a camera system you don't use and know so little about.
You are missing something else Richard: Journalist objectivity.

Ad hominem, the best way to bring the argument to a whole new level! Low, that is.
And I highly doubt that anyone could really consider 18.5/1.8 an „enthusiast” lens. Let's check... classic field of view (but „normal” would be more like 35mm, FX equivalent) but the light-gathering ability (a.k.a. „real aperture”) less than the crummiest zoom for DX...
So: nope, he didn't forgot anything. We actually have to give a standing round of ovation; never seen the flaws of a camera so clearly exposed on DPreview since mr. Askey took a step back.
I really do hope that more of the „new” cameras will be called under precisely this light, more and more from now on. After all, they sell our visit to the camera makers, but if we're less and less interested in continuous praise, what will there be to sell?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 05:05 UTC
On Am I missing something here? article (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Brunette: I love my V1's small fast and most importantly for me, the evf. I'm 54, a photojournalist of 30+ years and my eyes need the evf, or glasses. The V1 has 4 weak points, overheating, blacked out shutter after 1 shot, clunky menus and the strange flash. Yet, it's awesome for street photography, can't wait to see if 3 of 4 are fixed. These cameras are full on pro quality, the lenses are pretty sweet also. Who cares about exposure compensation, shoot manual, it's way easier to batch edit. I bet the big lens will be a huge hit for pro sports shooters.

And you say that as... a videographer. All the respect for oil+water investigations, video documentaries and stuff, but some of us actually want a *photo* camera.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 04:56 UTC
On Am I missing something here? article (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: For some reason, Nikon is believing they are a luxury brand and they can charge anything.

Nikon is dead. On one hand, they are chasing after the bottom ground (lowest-end DSLRs), on the other hand they want to sell very decent products with a 50% markup.

In the meantime, the prosumers, who have always been the core of Nikon customers, are being left in the dust.

That is no strategy. That is pure insanity.

Wait, do you actually think that they have *only* 50% markup? Maybe for ages-old D5000s that they still find a warehouse, half across the globe...
Try 400% from the bill-of-materials, or (at least) 150% from the moment you count the man-hours, factory building, paychecks and the (very) tiny bit of research that they do for the grand total of 3 (three) buttons shuffled around the screen.
50% markup... yeah, sure. From the moment that a camera enters in your country. Even fsk-old rejects still have at least 25% markup...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 04:51 UTC
On File0023 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

DoctorJerry: TWA flying a prop plane? Very grainy image with the appearance of a much earlier time.

Looks like a vintage/museum flight (it's a DC3).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

Frederik Paul: Could it be that Canon finally got their things straight? I'm curious about the noise performance.

Take a look:
The ISO3200 one looks impresively clean.
P.S.: can someone help me? How can I write a clickable link in DPR comments? :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 10:28 UTC
On Just posted: Our Canon EOS 70D hands-on preview article (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

rodney in brisbane: Let's wait until we see the reviews. For many stills photographers, the 70D will only be interesting if its high ISO performance and dynamic range is significantly better than those of the 60D and 7D.

I found the samples:
I'm shocked by the ISO3200 pic... It's as cleaner than ISO320 (less than ISO400!) coming from my 40D, and that is PER PIXEL.
I hated the 50D, and while I enjoy 7D (and using from time to time 600D), I still struggle with high ISO from the 18MP sensor.
5DmkII was clean enough at ISO3200, but you still had to fight per-pixel noise; from what I can see in the few sample images, this looks to be the first really nice sensor in the last 5 years. I wouldn't be amazed if it beats the legacy reputation of Nikon D3S, sensor-wise; but it's a big IF, and only if those samples really represent the actual quality.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 10:25 UTC
On Preview:sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m2 (189 comments in total)

<< Since correction is part of the camera's design, we'd conclude that any converter not applying the corrections doesn't fully support the camera. >>

It's an *opinion* and I can respect that; your site, your rules. Still, it's no excuse to let it slide and NOT offer a test with a RAW converter that (at least) has the option to disable the automatic distortion correction.

Posted on Jun 27, 2013 at 07:46 UTC as 66th comment
In reply to:

Alphoid: Fantastic news. This was ask for before by other folks, and I'll ask again: Give samples on full-frame. Why APS-on-full-frame? You can crop. If you're doing a square crop, for instance, you get more image than you would on APS. If you're okay with a bit of vignetting, you get more image. Etc.

The lens is also likely to perform differently on full frame at different focal lengths and apertures. There may be some combos where it does quite well.

C'mon, mr. Butler! A full test is outof the question, but at least a few pics can be snapped even by your cleaning lady, if you give her a FF :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2013 at 07:08 UTC
On Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 5 article (253 comments in total)
In reply to:

davidonformosa: I'm currently using Lightroom 3.6. Is it possible to upgrade directly to Lightroom 5? Do I get to upgrade for the reduced price?

If you're from Europe, beware of the price gouging: $79 = €79.
Try to use a proxy, it's unbelievable that Adobe still practices this mindless price difference, for the exact same download. Oh wait, there's also English to English translation... :D

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 05:42 UTC
On Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 5 article (253 comments in total)

Until Adobe fixes the Cloud mess, I predict a huge increase in photography-related ads. On illegal torrents sites, of course ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 05:23 UTC as 79th comment
In reply to:

massimogori: It is evident that Canon rose the bar and targeted Leica, not Tamron nor Tokina. They already succeeded in matching prices. Next step will be to match Leica's market share.

Your take, obviously, was perfectly diagnosed by yourself: no idea.
My take is based on testing them all, working in a photo equipment shop, seeing service operations and measurements for half a ton of lenses and... Oh, sorry, you were just in love with your brand! Then yes, I have no idea; I love some results given by various pieces of engineering, but I don't know hot to love the actual objects that much. Sorry for finding faults on your sweetheart :P

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2013 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

40daystogo: Adobe, let me explain it simply so you can understand.

Adobe, you think all you've done is made Photoshop a bit more expensive, but can't understand why the masses are rebelling. You don't get it.

There is nothing more sacred to digital artists than their data files. The single biggest fear of digital artists is that, years later, somehow they cannot use and edit the files that represent their lifetime's artistic work.

It was always a fear we thought would never happen, since we entrusted our files to the biggest player (Adobe) who wouldn't go away. Then suddenly Adobe turns around and uses that monopoly to hold us to ransom.

What Adobe have done is tantamount to holding a knife to the throats of our children, wives, mothers -- and not just held the knife there, but pressed a little into the flesh to draw blood. Adobe, do you now understand what you have done, and why the outcry is so great? It's because you, Adobe, have threatened the future-access to our own artistic data files.

If you need to edit your photos once and then forget, fine. It's like renting a car: you used it to transport you from the airport to the city, and there you give it back.
But you must be really, really stupid to perpetually rent a car, years on end. Even if it were like a subscription where you would always get the nicest sedan, it's still not your car and you can't use it anymore the moment you stop.
We want to BUY a piece of software, and have an option to upgrade when we want; we don't like being forced to pay until death, on the promise that "we will make it better". We pay for your software NOW, and we will pay again WHEN (and if) you make significant advancement with it.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 09:53 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: By the way, I just checked the prices on DPreview Gearshop. I loved the "SAVE 1.99" green tag...

Say, it happens often to use your lenses as nutcrackers?
The Tamron is built solidly, and more importantly: it's designed to eliminate weak internal adjustments, the ones that throw your beloved brand-name lens out of whack (centering, focus calibration etc) just because you sneeze at it. Of course, the metal outside looks perfect, but inside... Let's not go there.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

massimogori: It is evident that Canon rose the bar and targeted Leica, not Tamron nor Tokina. They already succeeded in matching prices. Next step will be to match Leica's market share.

Can't wait for the dinosaurs to be left behind by the ones that we consider now "third party". Even if I'm a Canon guy, I'd enjoy a 2015 when a humorless chap would come with some statistic like:

*Market share 2015:*
Canon 5%
Nikon 5%
Others combined 10%
Innovative guyz 80%

Bah... No chance for that to happen, as long as there are people to slavishly buy Cloud licenses and throw double the money on "brand name" lenses that don't feature even things that are common for third party.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 08:58 UTC
Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »