ThePhilips

ThePhilips

Lives in Germany Germany
Joined on Oct 5, 2010

Comments

Total: 607, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (651 comments in total)

Pricey. Largish.

And frankly, I'm still skeptical of the bridge cameras.

Though, sometimes, I want to buy one of the Pana FZ cameras just to experience first-hand what all those Pana users are raving about. After owning the GX7 for 6+ months, I have absolutely no doubt that Pana is capable of producing a camera to rave about.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 23:13 UTC as 98th comment
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2300 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: It would match my kitchen appliances.

Evidence that Leica T is manufactured by Panasonic is piling up.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 22:50 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (625 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeReidDesign: Why do cameras cost so much these days? Seems like the prices keep rising every year.

> Why do cameras cost so much these days?

Because it is impossible to compete in the low end. A cheaper camera would have to compete against smartphones on one side, and the $350-400 CaNikon kits.

The current high-priced gear are nothing but exploratory attempts by marketing departments to find a new high-margin niche. That is also why they fall in price so fast: attempts fail more often than not - and companies have to dispose of the stock.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (625 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: DPR, now you are obliged to at least test IQ of the Samsung NX Mini.

@dpmaxwell, who know how DPR wants to test the camera. Theoretically they can put an NX adapter on it and use the same lens they use for the bigger NX cameras. But probably it doesn't work for whatever reason. Or Samsung simply hasn't supplied the adapter.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 19:45 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (625 comments in total)

DPR, now you are obliged to at least test IQ of the Samsung NX Mini.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 17:56 UTC as 63rd comment | 3 replies
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (625 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: So disappointing. As though bells and whistles will make up for spectacularly poor image quality. 76% is being charitable. And $900 for a fast 85mm equivalent? Please.

"My $4000 gear bag full of FF gear can not do this [...]"

There is nothing special about those photos.

Conclusion about the "bag": wrong glass; teleconverter is missing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 17:44 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (625 comments in total)
In reply to:

nunatak: all comparisons are relative. the IQ coming out of the V series is still much better than what was remotely possible from the film based Pentax Auto 110 or Minolta 110 SLRs. to improve IQ, the film manufacturers poured $$$ into new technology with the resulting innovations percolating upward and eventually finding their way into larger formats ... thus benefiting everyone.

at this time, the main benefits of the N1 system are speed, stealth, and a breadth and reach of top shelf glass other systems have yet to match. with improved sensors, a standard hot shoe, better wi-fi access, focus peaking, and a strong value proposition ... Nikon can still snatch victory back from the jaws of despair. JMO.

"at this time, the main benefits of the N1 system are speed, stealth, and a breadth and reach of top shelf glass other systems have yet to match."

When you put this legacy "breadth and reach of top shelf glass" on N1, it loses both "speed, stealth" and eronomics, gains size and weight, and becomes a pretty ordinary (overpriced) camera.

If you are really after the Nikkor DX/FX glass, you'd be better served by e.g cheaper D5300.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 17:39 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (625 comments in total)
In reply to:

lolopasstrail: Exactly right with regard to the price. But why single this model out for a price ding in DPR Reviews, while ignoring the high price of other items?

Exactly right that it cannot compete with larger size sensors. But why single this model out for a smaller format ding in DPR Reviews, while formats such as micro 43 are not dinged for being naturally inferior to larger formats?

One reason DPR Reviews are good for feature description, but not really for comparison. Their criteria are subjective and ever changing, making it difficult to compare apples and apples.

"while formats such as micro 43 are not dinged for being naturally inferior to larger formats?"

So you want DPR to troll on your behalf?..

"Their criteria are subjective and ever changing, making it difficult to compare apples and apples."

... while too "dinging" them for "inferior" reviews??

What's wrong with you people?!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Porter: Judging by recent news posts, things are going to be pretty slow on DPR until September.

Just like every other summer.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 08:48 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: The leghose trick would work great if it could be replaced with another material that wouldn't attract ridicule from my colleagues. I like the tablet lighting trick.

The old tricks I heard about are: (1) filter smeared with vaseline and (2) filter dusted with flour.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 08:47 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

fortwodriver: This is absolute BS... The f-stop is a measure of the ratio of the diaphragm opening to the focal length of the lens. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to talk about light transmission, please do your research on T-Stops and stop making this stuff up.

> T-Stops and F-Stops are not equivalent.

And I have never said that they were.

> Talk about ignorance...

Ironic, coming from person who puts words into my mouth.

IIRC. Starting from around f/2.8, and narrow, loss of light is relatively constant at around 1/4-1/3 of a stop. IOW, most f/2.8 lenses have T number around 3.0, give or take. It gets weirder as aperture increases, because loss of light increases too: typical f/1.2, looses 1-1.5 stops of light when aperture is fully open; gradually getting better with typical loss of light of f/2.0 lenses being around 1/2 stop. (This is by memory. Some nice people on the internet tested bunch of lenses and made a graph. No idea how to find it.)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 17:41 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: There must be an professor of imaging science out there somewhere who can be hired by DPR to write a nice counterpoint article that will untangle this topic and bring sanity to what is essentially a holy war between two under-informed camps. I would start at http://www.rit.edu/cos/optics-rit and work westward from there.

DPR article has "untangled" the topic.

There is no "holy war". There is a small vocal group which twists and rejects the definition of the words. But it's OK to ignore them because the only "creative" output from them are the shots of brick walls.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 17:24 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: This is a crock. There is no equivalence in apertures. F/2.8 is always F/2.8 no matter what the sensor size is. It projects the same brightness of light in all cases.

Point is: a speedlight (flash) that has a guide number of 100 feet will illuminate a subject 35.71 feet away at ISO 100 and F/2.8. No matter what your sensor size is, this will not change.

You cannot say that just because the sensor is bigger that changes anything because if you make the lens F/5.6 and do not change the flash guide number or ISO, then your exposure will be off.

Further, the amount of image noise generated is not exactly two stops "better" between, say, Four Thirds and 135-format. Neither is dynamic range. It varies based on the year the camera came out, how many pixels it has, etc.

DOF is also not exactly two stops different because DOF is affected by pixel density as well.

So stop LYING to people, DPReview.

"Then what will happen if I resize 36MP image into 16MP?"

That would make DOF larger, as if shot on smaller sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 17:12 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: This is a crock. There is no equivalence in apertures. F/2.8 is always F/2.8 no matter what the sensor size is. It projects the same brightness of light in all cases.

Point is: a speedlight (flash) that has a guide number of 100 feet will illuminate a subject 35.71 feet away at ISO 100 and F/2.8. No matter what your sensor size is, this will not change.

You cannot say that just because the sensor is bigger that changes anything because if you make the lens F/5.6 and do not change the flash guide number or ISO, then your exposure will be off.

Further, the amount of image noise generated is not exactly two stops "better" between, say, Four Thirds and 135-format. Neither is dynamic range. It varies based on the year the camera came out, how many pixels it has, etc.

DOF is also not exactly two stops different because DOF is affected by pixel density as well.

So stop LYING to people, DPReview.

> So 36MP D800 has more DOF than 16MP D4?

Indeed. But you have to look at the images at 1:1 magnification (or crop 36MP to 16MP) to see it. If you scale images to the screen size, the effect would be lost.

{The article skillfully managed to avoid the confusing to many (because of the non-trivial math involved) topic of "circle of confusion". When all parameters (but sensor resolution) are the same, the absolute size of the circle of confusion is the same. But in case of high resolution sensor, circle of confusion is captured by greater number of pixels.}

> What 'pixel density' film camera does have?

Duh. Film grain + photo paper grain, obviously.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 23:39 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

fortwodriver: This is absolute BS... The f-stop is a measure of the ratio of the diaphragm opening to the focal length of the lens. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to talk about light transmission, please do your research on T-Stops and stop making this stuff up.

> If you want to talk about light transmission

Everybody forgotten about T-stops because modern optics became so good, that one can easily convert F number into the T number, and then back.

Only cine-gear uses the T-numbers - and that only because of the traditions. But mostly inertia.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 23:28 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)

DPR, you should have started with historical fact that 135 film format, aka "Full Frame", started its life as a crop, literally.

All these formats are crops of the crops of the crops. None of them is "full".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 23:24 UTC as 192nd comment | 4 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2031 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wilight: I'm really impressed with the patience of dpreview staff to awnswer dumb questions/comments, even after providing an article like this. I can't realize why such a simple thing still produces so much babbling these days. For me, it's like trying to explain why 2+2 equals to 2x2. Are most of dpreview readers kids or what?

"They are an example of an average voter [...]"

... who feel the need to explain us idiots rationally why their choice is superior. Because, duh, they are superior and ergo ipsum, so is their choice. The "equivalency" is just an outlet to rationalize and affirm their superiority.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 23:21 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChrisKramer1: $1,196.95

X-D

That's pretty much sums it up.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:16 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

AEPA: What the Nikon one is about and can do..http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53950702

As birding/wild-life goes, nothing really extraordinary.

But sure that reach - 300*2.7 = 810mm eq - of the 70-300mm lens is very very attractive.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 11:07 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: There's no mention of a loss of resolution in the FZ1000 lens, beyond 300mm. This is mentioned in another review. In the samples, there's only a couple of full-zoom photos and they don't look very sharp. This issue needs to be examined closely and addressed in the next edition of a DPR review on this camera.

> This issue needs to be examined closely [...]

What issue?

P.S. Optics 101: All long tele zooms become soft at the tele end. Some worse, some better - but all are pretty mediocre. Or very bad, if compared to a dedicated tele prime.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 17:04 UTC
Total: 607, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »