Joined on Sep 18, 2008


Total: 52, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Why is dpreview even putting this rip off on the site?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2012 at 06:00 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Perhaps DPR could do some tests on:
Roof Tiles
Insects (eyes of a housefly)
Fencing patterns
Hatch drawings
Currency bill macros
The local neighborhood view just don't cut it...


Very good idea; so why didn't they think of doing this. After all, this was always in contention so they should have made an effort

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2012 at 19:33 UTC
On Quick Guide to Video Lighting article (33 comments in total)

This would have been a better tutorial if a diagram had been included. I've always struggled with 3 point lighting for video. Mind you, so have channel 5 looking at some of their studio footage. So for me, this article didn't quite go far enough. Hopefully the author will follow it up with more information.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2012 at 17:36 UTC as 17th comment
On The One-Light Studio article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maverick_: How disappointing. We normally associate this site with higher caliber work, even if the topic is single light source. These images are not interesting at all. I think having access to a studio, with a nice backdrop that you'd want to get more creative with your lighting. Budget has nothing to do with it, it's using your imagination, you are not shooting products for eBay. TERRIBLE.

I think you are outnumbered here Maverick. This mini tutorial does the intended job: it teaches the basics of using a single light. It is not comprehensive; it's not intended to be. The images are good enough to illustrate the points made.

And as strata83 mentions the examples in one of the best books on lighting ever written uses quite boring and flat images.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 22:53 UTC
On The One-Light Studio article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

jquagga: I found the article helpful. Now I need a beauty dish to play with!

Beauty dishes are over rated.. They are best for close up work, head and shoulders with the dish placed close up, which is what they were designed for. They are much less suitable for full body shots.You can get just as good results or better using a simple brolly (dirt cheap) or softbox. I suggest the article is not about the equipment, but about the lighting techniques demonstrated. Overall, a good introduction for the beginner; it demonstrates what can be achieved with a simple setup. Now adding a large reflector to this which could be a simple piece of white card would add a whole range of additional lghting.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 22:41 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

645D: Nikon is kicking Canon's butt in all directions:-) Keep going, Nikon!!!

Rubbish. The images from the Canon are very good and is some respects better. But I question the quality of dpreview's test shot for the Nikon (look out of focus).

And no I don't shoot Canon, I shoot Nikon. I'm not interested in silly my camera is better than yours... nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2012 at 07:31 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

R N: With all due respect to the fine folks at DPR, I think this test may have been rushed. The JPEGS looked very blurred compared to the detail available from RAW (see for example ISO 400, 800) -- was the appropriate sharpening selected? The focus looks questionable, and it looks like the kit lens may have been used judging by the falloff of sharpness away from center. I respectfully suggest trying a repeat of this test to see if the results are reproduced. Something looks awry -- or maybe it is just me :)

Yes, focusing is suspect. Either that or there is camera shake.

I'll say it again: dpreview is not taking enough care producing comparison/test images.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2012 at 07:28 UTC
On Nikon D3200 preview (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: The image quality looks good, but not as good as the Sony NEX-7. I'm a bit underwhelmed. I was expecting the Nikon to show a little bit of an improvement over the Sony camera, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps Nikon wanted to save something for the higher end cameras when they get this sensor?

Why is the shot from the Sony so much larger. There is only a small difference which I guess would only show as a tiny difference (Sony: 24.3, Nikon: 24.2).

Is this giving a false impression that the Sony resolves more detail and iis sharper.

There seems to be a general lack of care at dpreview, which makes it difficult to decide. And I think that it's about time dpreview changed it's studio setup to reflect that sensor sizes have moved on and includes more fine detail.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2012 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

R Thornton: I 've had a fair share of new camera failures in my time (I am looking right at you Nikon!) and let's say I was less than impressed by how I was treated as a customer. So, I wouldn't be all too harsh on Fuji for this one, 'cause it seems like it will all play out well.
However, if they packaged the repaired-sensor camera as a "new" model, x10s or y11 or whatever, and sold it at a slightly higher price to wrench the cost of their failure from the customers after all, that I would resent.

Any specific Nikon cameras Mr Thornton? Please.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2012 at 07:34 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery article (499 comments in total)

Another preview of a Nikon camera. I wonder whether we will every get a finished review of this one? We never got one for the D800. Others have done their reviews of it. As said before (others and myself) dpreview is gong downhill

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2012 at 06:50 UTC as 118th comment | 2 replies
On Adobe announces Photoshop CS6 and CS6 Extended article (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

doctorbza: can anybody link me to the page on adobe's website where i can sign up for a $20/month photoshop membership? their site is terrible.

It's no good complaining here about Adobe's revamped website. Complain to Adobe direct. Agree, it's a truly horrible, customer unfreindly site; been getting worse for years.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

panteraaa: won't u need a high quality glass for that 24MP??? how good will that kit lens be in this camera?

Yes, Nikon's kit lenses are very very usable, unlike Canon's bottle glass kit lenses. It's only the more expensive lens range where the two makers lenses match up quality wise.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 05:48 UTC
On Dan Chung posts 5D Mark III vs. D800 video shootout article (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

lindner: You guys should test less cameras and test those quick. Huge amounts of previews (and 'overviews' and shootouts and whatnot) in the 'recents' but very few actual reviews. Fewer but actual 'reviews' would be So Much Better.

Agree, dpreview do seem to resent any criticism. It actually went downhill when the yanks took over. This isn't a dig, it's just an observation. And they still don't review anywhere near enough lenses. However, it is still the best review site on the web, but they do need to take notice of the people who use the site (we can stop using you guys you know).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2012 at 08:00 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (901 comments in total)
In reply to:

4x5View: The 5DMKIII may have a great jpg engine, but it seems to be adding artifacts to the images, please note the dark outlining around the "The Original" text on the Baileys bottle. Note that this is not visible in the raw image on the 5DMKIII. It does not show on the other default cameras in this list. It does not seem to be ISO dependent.

Also notice the noise or artifacts in the green patch on the color chart to the left of the Baileys bottle. This is quite visible on the 5DMKIII 100 ISO raw image.

This new generation of cameras are awesome, but, may have some firmware problems. In both of these cases the Sony, D800 and the 5DMKII look fine.

But Canon always had a tendency to overprocess and add artifacts. Surprised to see that noise in the green patch in Raw though.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 06:51 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

seta666: Nikon did it again, best sensor DXOmark has ever tested. The per pixel noise very similar to the 5D mkIII but with more pixels.

14.4 EV DR, 25.3 bit color depth, almost 1 stop ISO advantage over 5D mkII in Raw

I own a 5D mkII, just in case anyone thinks I am a nikon fan boy ;-)

Canon shooters shouldn't worry about the Nikon D800. It's a good camera. But, hey! so is the 5D Mk III. So it's got a few more pixels, so what. The 5D Mk III has enough for anything I can think of: stock, big images, landscapes... It's not the camera... PS: I'm a Nikon shooter, who also respects Canon for also making great cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

n1zr: I'm a Canon shooter and necessarily have to stick with their bodies because of my investment in their glass. These pics confirm (when compared to the D800 samples especially) what I believed all along. They're both great tools, and it's the eye (and brain) behind the lens that matter most. There's megapixels-a-plenty to go around people. Enjoy the next generation of cameras! (and long-live the healthy rivalry)... Now drop the prices of those 1Ds3's!!!

Someone who knows about photography. Well said n1zr. Agree with you 100%.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

gl2k: why can't dpreview provide us with professional photos ?
they all look like snapshots.actually they are.

what about pro portraits ?
what about difficult to shoot fabric ?
what about high glossy surfaces ?

those images don't tell anything at all ... sorry guys

Have to agree with you. About time dpreview took more professional pictures (Are you listening dprevew?).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: Nice selection of images and it looks like you're doing a good job of rounding out the reviews of these new cameras.

I'm not sure I totally understand the people who seem to want to compare Nikon's D800 to the 5DMKIII. They are different cameras with somewhat different ways to get to the same thing.

Secondly, they are both at a serious enough price tag where most will have already owned a full frame model and already have lenses. The aren't switching brands. Pros often are no different. They still have budgets and overhead.

Also, different cameras are designed to appeal to different types of photographers. If I were a sports photographer and needed to upgrade one of my bodies, it would be with a Nikon D4. I'd look funny trying to mount my Nikoln 500 f/4 on a Canon. ;)

Guidenet, I would say that some of us who intend at some time to swap up to full fame do buy full frame lenses. They work pretty much the same, they just tend to cost more (but not always). There is a slightly different philosophy between Canon and Nikon. Both make cameras for a range of customers. But in this case I suggest that the D800 targets the same photographer who would otherwise buy a Canon 5D Mk II / III: However, I think landscape/stock photographers will find the D800 the more appropriate while wedding/portrait photographers may prefer the 5D Mk II/III or even the 50D/60D.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Tape5: Well these are all great cameras, fine. That is however not the point. The point is how Canon in my view will lose the edge in SALES over D800 and will suffer for years. Why?

1 Canon marketing thinks one out of every three human beings in this world is a Pro or a journalist or a wedding photographer. My guess is 90% of buyers at this level never sell a photo. This is not a forty grand MF market.

2 Canon got cocky with their 5D mark II and wanted to have a double dip

3 Canon does not appreciate that there are kids out there with five grand a week pocket money and their numbers are increasing by a thousand a day

4 Canon thought if they lower the resolution, people will think there is some genius behind it

5 Canon got caught by Nikon’s clever alliance with Sony who was making video and broadcast sensors for decades before Canon or Nikon did

6 You must be loaded or working for Reuters 24/7 to upgrade to mark III from II. But most Nikon owners want an upgrade with D800.

Sorry Tape5, I can;t agree with you. Most people who buy a dslr camea buy into a system. It is relatively rare for photographers to swap systems just because one maker has a temporary edge. There is too much money and expertise invested in that chosen system. The only people likely to swap over are the type of amateur who must have the latest, best piece of kit, in other words: the nutters. The Canon 5D Mk 2 remains a great camera with a usable pixel range. If I was a Canon shooter I would be more than happy. The Mk 3 may not have the same kind of massive upgrade that the Nikon has, but I'm sure that quite a few will upgrade. The reason why a lot of Nikon users will upgrade is simply because Nikon have lagged behind for several years now, so the jump to an D800 is because this camera, at last gives Nikon users the opportunitiy to get a full frame camera with very usable pixels at a (just) affordable price. Canon users would be stupid to swap from an already great camera system.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:20 UTC
On First Impressions: Using the Nikon D800 article (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

docfink: I gotta finally shout this out to all the whiney, geeky, pixel-peeping ninnies out there who love to tout one brand over another and make these photo forums the MOST ANNOYING AND UNINFORMATIVE areas for discourse on the net:

The D800 is sweet. The 5D3 will kick ass too. Your lenses will work beautifully on the D800 and the focus will be sharp--even when wide open. Geeks and pixel peepers will be annoyed by certain things, but clients and family will think you're the second coming of Ansel Adams. Got that?

Again, as someone who has several other hobbies for which I frequent Internet Forums, these photo forums ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT and a turnoff to those who actually want to learn. It's hard to filter out the useful with all the whiney crap posted in between. Police yourselves, please.

Let's get a moderator here to delete annoying comments that have nothing to do with the original post or go off topic.

Seriously--consider what I'm saying before you cry and post junk.

Like your post; but there are worse out there. One learns to just ignore the crap. What annoys me though is the stupid Nikon/Canon fanboys rivalry.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 08:54 UTC
Total: 52, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »