Peter K Burian

Peter K Burian

Lives in Canada Toronto, Canada
Works as a Photographer, writer, editor
Has a website at www.peterkburian.com
Joined on Feb 11, 2002
About me:

Stock photographer and regular Contributor to PHOTO LIFE, Shutterbug, Here's How, Australian Photography and Marketnews magazine.

Also, Author of Magic Lantern books about Sony and Pentax DSLRs (but I test all brands of products for the magazines.)

www.peterkburian.com

Comments

Total: 168, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Sounds like food coloring to me. The rusting cars that people abandon in the desert are a greater problem than a few small splashes of color in the millions of acres of desert in the U.S.

... the colors/liquids used in the photographs are 95% water .... β€œnon toxic and water based.”

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 13:31 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

patcam7122: Did I strike a nerve, Simon? If you look at other comments here you'll see I'm certainly not alone in finding this article was a waste of space.

How about reading this article at night after volunteering at a children's home for 12 hours? Would that be ok?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 13:21 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Surprising and innovative. Impressive result. But ... I see it only as a proof of concept really. The images do not have any interesting content, except the liquid. So - you look - wonder how they made it and then look at something else.

I agree; cool concepts and a few of the photos are dramatic. But really no lasting visual impression.

The wave photos (Clark Little) have a lot more artistic merit; I would love one of those photos on my wall in a huge size for the next 20 years.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

DigiMatt: Many of these photos appear to be taken in desert or semi-arid climates. I don't care how non-toxic or non-staining the photographers or DP Review staff claim these paints are. When you are in a place where it only rains 3 or 4 times a year, doing something like this is polluting the environment. How would you like it DP Review staff, if this was in your backyard, or in your local park and the mess stayed on the ground for 6-9 months or more? I am absolutely floored at the lack of critical thinking by DP Review.

The duo states:
..... We are also conscious of the environment, the color is non-toxic, non-staining, water based and composed of 95% water.”

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 13:16 UTC
On Surf's Up: Clark Little's incredible wave photography article (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bernard Carns: Isn't this a rerun?

Is the summer season for the DPReview network?

:-)

I googled it and could not find previous coverage of Little's photography on dpreview.

And his book was only released recently so this is a suitable time to feature him again (even IF they featured his work in the past).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 13:10 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arsen: The improvements are small but all in the right place for me. The better LCD, Better ISO, Faster Frame Rate, better Focus.. These little changes makes an awesome camera even better. I will be upgrading from the D800E to the D810..

Just one very important question, I see that they will be releasing their Stupid Nikon Capture NX-D on July 15th for free. Does this mean that there will not be Capture NX2 Support for the D810? Can anyone confirm this? If so this will be a deal breaker for me.

No problem. I tried Nikon Capture NX-d and I strongly!!! prefer NX2.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: Not impressed with Nikon, would give it a miss if not essential!

100K? What's the guess as to when that will arrive? STU5 said that an 8K TV will be viable soon, however. QUOTE: 8K TVs are already being shown by Samsung and Sharp.

Regardless of all that, I do not need or want 4K either, partly because it would increase the cost of the camera. (Sony has 4K in the a7s but it is a very, very expensive camera. $1000 more than the a7.) And how many 4K TV's are out there? Another comment said it would be five years before 4K was common so who needs it yet?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:54 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

goshigoo: A 4K video reinstalled to 1080p is better than a native 1080p video

So, even you do not have 4K TV, you can still benefit from 4k video

Yes there is a Sony sensor that can handle 4K video. The a7s is equipped with it. Not 36 megapixel of course, but Sony already has the available technology. What would that sensor cost with 36 megapixels? Tons of money...then the D810 would cost over $4000 and most people here would be saying, "That is too expensive and who needs 4K anyway?"

Sony announces a7S full-frame mirrorless with 4:2:2 4K video output http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/06/sony-announces-alpha-7-series-full-frame-mirrorless-with-4-2-2-4k-video-output

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:51 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

utphoto: Amazing. The number of dismissive comments about 4K, especially the five to ten years before it will be here scenarios. First, it won't be even five years before it has a 30-50% penetration in to homes in the US. Within two years it will be the standard for virtually all sets 40" in size or larger except for entry level models. And these are not my guesstimates but from professional industry organizations.

The most important reason for 4K is that 1080 derived from a 4K master, even disregarding the cropping options, looks far better than 1080 shot natively. Serious video shooters are already shooting in 4K for archival purposes. As for 8K, don't hold your breath. 4K is the sweet spot for the consumer. 8K will be used primarily for commercial cinema production and presentation.

If it will be that long before 4K video is really viable, why would a camera manufacturer install that feature now? Maybe in the D850...

One Sony DSLT camera can shoot 4K but only to an external recorder; that adds significant extra cost, as well as size/weight.

I might want a 4K camera eventually but not yet.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:47 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

zsedcft: How difficult would it have been for Nikon to implement a highlight-weighted exposure compensation as a firmware update for the D800? That is what I do with the histogram anyway.

The extra video modes are moot IMO. The whole idea of DSLR video with the 5dmk2 was that you could get super shallow DoF with a fairly inexpensive camera (compared to what was previously available). Nobody is going to buy a D810 over a Sony A7S for video because it lacks full sensor readout and 4k.

Quiet shutter and the other minor spec bumps are nice but I will not be upgrading my D800 for this. If I was buying new I think I would get a used D800 (after thoroughly checking the focus issues) because it is about a 24-70mm f/2.8 cheaper and will give you virtually identical images.

I'm sure that many photographers could list some feature they want. How difficult would it have been for Nikon to implement a xxxx .... a few dozen Wish List items.

Nikon and Canon do consider feedback and suggestions from the pros they support but no manufacturer can include every single feature that everyone in the world might like to have.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:45 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shamael: Who needs 36 mpix 1080 video and 3200$ to pay, while the trend is 12 mpix, 4k and 2500$. Now, I ask myself some days that good ol' question, "should I laugh or should I cry."

Well the d800 was a very successful camera so some people want 36 MP. I own one and consider the $3000 that I paid to be good value. FABULOUS camera that provides amazing image quality. AND I can crop an image significantly and still have plenty of megapixels.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 12:27 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: What I don't understand about this comparison tool, is that if I pitch the A7 @ 6400 against the E-P5 @ 6400, I barely see a difference.

But then when I shoot my A7 against my E-P5 at home, there is a world of difference.

The E-P5 is completely useless at anything above ISO 800, while the A7 is perfectly happy at ISO 6400. Why are these differences not visible on the test image?

Agreed! That's why all high ISO testing really needs to be done in low light scenes, as dpreview did for the ultra high ISO review re: the Sony A7S.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 14:09 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (724 comments in total)
In reply to:

schmudge: cant believe they forgot TIME LAPSE what next, forget the lens

Some of the Sony apps are free; others are not. You can see both types at https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

ottonis: The results of this testing clearly reveal that the A7s' strengths are in (low) read noise that comes into effect particularly in shadow areas of the image.
That being said, I wonder whether the TRUE advantage of the A7s sensor might be in allowing to significantly underexpose images and to boost shadows in postprocessing to much better effect than would be possible with other cameras. The benefits of this would be: you could use much higher shutter speeds, particularly when you want or need to avoid motion blur (moving objects inavailable light) or when you use non-stabilized lenses and want to avoid camera shake blur.

In other words, could it be that the A7s may provide much more leeway for boosting underexposed image areas in PP and this being the *true* (albeit not yet systematically explored) advantage of the A7s over its A7 siblings or other FF cameras?

Any opinions / comments on that?

Interesting concept and well thought out. ....significantly underexpose images and to boost shadows in postprocessing to much better effect than would be possible with other cameras.

Yeah, makes sense to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:54 UTC
In reply to:

doctorbza: I can't help but feel that this is completely irrelevant for 99% of still photographers. Things like a 2/3 stop noise advantage at iso 102,400? Come on.

Photography is about light, remember? Who cares how these cameras perform when there is none?

I assume you are a sports photographer who must shoot football games at night in dark stadiums at very fast shutter speeds, mosc. I am still trying to figure out who else needs ISO 100,000++

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:53 UTC
In reply to:

IvanM: After a quick look at the RAW comparisons of the A7s and the 5D3, I must say it l0oks like we are splitting hairs here. They all look pretty similar to me with the 5D3 perhaps retaining more highlight detail. The thing is that on many shoots I have been more than happy with my 6D's performance at 25000iso. I am actually just blown over by the quality of the images...I have even made A2 prints of theatre images and the quality is just superb ,but I am sure this quality can also be had from Nikon, Sony etc...I even bought DXO because of the many times I find myself using 25000 iso and after my initial test DXO looks like the king of noise reduction, imo only of course...We are living in good times!

Ok, Ivan, nice to meet one person who often uses ISO 25,000. (See my recent post about ultra high ISO). I wonder what you shoot. But can you imagine needing a camera with ISO 400,000+?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

nunatak: DxO has previously verified* that Sony partially cooks their RAW data for noise reduction purposes β€” so rendered files "appear" to have less noise and better performance characteristics.

quote: "If reducing noise is so easy, why is it not always applied? Well, there is a price to pay: averaging pixels increases SNR, but introduces some correlation between pixels. This creates a grainy aspect to the image which is often as annoying as noise itself. Moreover, if pixels are blindly averaged, fine details may simply be erased."

a similar high ISO benefit could be achieved in post using non-sony sensors, with the exception that the photographer selects which regions and compromises are applied. as DxOmark hasn't broken out how different RAW files from different sensors are treated, comparisons of this kind appear much like RAW batter to cooked fudge. while fudge tastes great, i'm not sure DxO's recipe is absolute.

*http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Half-cooked-RAW/Noise-reduction

You are quoting an article published Tuesday March 10 2009. How do we know this is at all relevant today?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:49 UTC
In reply to:

ZAnton: Yep A7S is 1-2-3 stops better than Canon or A7R after ISO51000, but
I think this advantage useless. IQ is already so bad, that image is barely usable.
For me it would be much important to have 2 stops cleaner image @ISO6400 or 12800. It would extend the usable ISO range.
On the contrary, what we have now is comparison of different sorts of crap. Yes, one crap is twice as good as the other, but you know, it is still crap.

Amen. I am still trying to figure out why cameras need ISO levels above 12800, especially those not targeting professionals who might occasionally need that capability. I suspect it's because the manufacturer wants a competitive edge in the Specs. (My camera can shoot at ISO 400,000+ and yours cannot! I win.)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:47 UTC

Man it seems like a lot of work went into this test merely to show that a camera with ultra high ISO options is better than a camera without those options .....**IF you ever need to shoot at insanely high ISO.** Or am I misunderstanding what this is all about, Rishi?

I cannot recall *ever* needing to use an ISO higher than 6400. What the heck are people shooting at ISO 100,000? What needs are actually met by ISO 400,000+? Why not use a tripod or set the camera on something solid in night photography? (Or do people often shoot soccer/football night games at a 1/1500sec. shutter speed? How many people do so?)

(I'm sure a dozen guys will now attack me and say that they need ISO 100,000+ daily and that I know nothing about anything.)

A lot of work went into reaching this conclusion: ..So the bottom line is that the a7s is average at ISO 6400. (At more moderately high ISOs (6400 and below) ........... A7S will be similar to that of full-frame cameras of its generation.)..

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:38 UTC as 18th comment | 10 replies
On Sony SLT-A77 II First Impressions Review preview (599 comments in total)

Why does the review not mention this?? 12fps with continuous AF and ***up to 60 frames in a single burst when in JPEG fine setting (with focus locked at the first shot)****

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 13:47 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
Total: 168, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »