Rishi Sanyal

Rishi Sanyal

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Scientific Editor | Photographer
Has a website at www.rishi.photography
Joined on Feb 25, 2014
About me:

Although I'm a scientist by training, having recently completed my Ph.D in biophysics, photography has always been a huge passion of mine. When I saw an opportunity to meld the two at DPReview, I jumped at it... and now here I am!

Comments

Total: 943, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael MacGillivray: This article and the comments that follow are why today’s quality assurance is less than stellar. In the 1970’s, I was in my 20’s and purchased a number of different cameras. They were built like tanks and none of them were sent in for repairs. We didn’t have a “… hope I get a good copy” mentality, or a wait for firmware to correct design flaws. That was taken care of by camera companies BEFORE they shipped product.

It’s time to put the fan boy mentality in the trash when it comes to consumer electronics. Nikon has had a number of defective releases and should hardly be cheered for removing the D750 from shelves. Of course, this issue isn’t unique to Nikon, though they seem to have moved to the head of the ‘issues’ pack. Articles like this -- that put a “what’s the big deal?” handle on the thing, should be called on it. I appreciate the fact that DP Review, no doubt, was embarrassed by their initial rating after another botched launch.

I'm a Nikon fanboy b/c I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that a company is evil b/c of factors possibly outside of its control?

That makes me more a realist than a fanboy.

Also, if I must be labeled a 'fanboy', I'm a fanboy of technology, not any brand.

Besides, I've been labeled a Sony fanboy for liking their sensors, a Lytro fanboy for liking light field technology... it's really hard for me to keep track of whose camp I'm in, so thanks for reminding me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 07:42 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadmaister2: I wonder if the layout of DPReviews comments section needs some thought.
It's quite cramped, and reading through this thread it appears that either:
No-one bothers to read previous posts, because there is endless repetition, or:
DPR has a very high proportion of Trolls per poster.
It's such a shame that we, who apparently share photography as a passion, can evince such bitterness over an innocent fault from a manufacturer.
Of course we all wish this hadn't happened for goodness sake, but the D750 is still a tool that will take superb pictures.
I wonder if the posters here can say the same?

"It's such a shame that we, who apparently share photography as a passion, can evince such bitterness over an innocent fault from a manufacturer."

I couldn't have said it better.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 07:25 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecube: What is "Quality"?
To me, it it conformance to SPECIFICATION

There is "Fit and Tolerance" in "Machine Design" or "Design of the Elements of Mechanism". Precision machines such as watches have tight "fit and tolerances". Camera is considered a precision machine. Within this set of precision machines are subsets of classes. The high end Swiss and Japanese Certified Chronographs have ultra-fine fit and ultra tight tolerances approaching single digit microns.

Quality Assurance program is to ensure that the product is BUILT to meet or exceed the "Design Specifications". Good specification is NOT SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. Good specification is quantifiable and measurable. For this reason, a good design does not call for a Fit & Tolerances that cannot be measured by any existing instrument

The above barely scratch the surface of design, manufacturing, and Q/A but I feel is enough to ask: Does the Nikon D750 meet the basic of good DESIGN, MANUFACTURING, and QUALITY ASSURANCE?

But you can't just view it 'by eye' - you view it only b/c I've positioned the cameras very precisely from shot to shot, then aligned them in Photoshop, then created a rollover for you to see the differences.

No way even I could tell the differences between the cameras until I did precisely that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 07:23 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Marooni: Dear DPREVIEW,

Until today I was you fan, but today you lost me.
This article is just an excuse for a glorified article of a faulty camera. Any of you are working for Nikon department of marketing? Because you just started to sound like them.
And what is worst, everything you wrote until now comes into questioning. That bad was your excuse for a probably paid article you wrote for D750.

Sorry guys, but you are no longer the no1 reference in the review industry.

Keith Reeder- please revisit the AF write-up on the flare page. You misunderstood our point. Also, you do realize that all AF components are fit into placement with some sort of tolerance for placement, right? It's why calibration procedures that software/firmware corrections exist.

So until I/we see the tolerances for all other AF units in all other cameras, I think it'd be a mistake for anyone to jump to the conclusion that this is wildly out of the ordinary. Seems like it might, & it might be easy to jump to that conclusion, but it'd be uninformed.

To everyone else that doesn't understand why we didn't retract the Gold award or lower the score, I want to reiterate a point I've made before: our not revisiting the score has *nothing* to do with any sort of embarrassment about our initial assessment. It has to do with the fact that we absolutely zero reason to knock the rating of the camera b/c of this minor issue that is being corrected anyway, making it utterly a non-issue. Period.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 00:41 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael MacGillivray: This article and the comments that follow are why today’s quality assurance is less than stellar. In the 1970’s, I was in my 20’s and purchased a number of different cameras. They were built like tanks and none of them were sent in for repairs. We didn’t have a “… hope I get a good copy” mentality, or a wait for firmware to correct design flaws. That was taken care of by camera companies BEFORE they shipped product.

It’s time to put the fan boy mentality in the trash when it comes to consumer electronics. Nikon has had a number of defective releases and should hardly be cheered for removing the D750 from shelves. Of course, this issue isn’t unique to Nikon, though they seem to have moved to the head of the ‘issues’ pack. Articles like this -- that put a “what’s the big deal?” handle on the thing, should be called on it. I appreciate the fact that DP Review, no doubt, was embarrassed by their initial rating after another botched launch.

I think what some are missing here is how difficult it is to test for *everything*. These are such complex devices that there are often things that pop up that can almost be seen as 'emergent properties', albeit in this case not a good one.

Yes, a company should address these when they happen, but a point I'd like to make is that it's unreasonable to expect that any manufacturer or designer can think of every possible way to test a device to ensure that it's perfect.

In such a case, early adopters are kind of like beta testers. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - when things get so complex, it's almost like you *need* to crowd-source testing.

I realize certain consumers won't be happy with that - I myself am often one of those dissatisfied customers (don't get me started on bulb flicker on my Sony home theater projector, btw). But I don't immediately think the company is bad, evil, or irresponsible; I recognize that expecting perfection of such complex devices is unreasonable.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 00:31 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Sooner or later every manufacturer has a camera with a problem they didn't catch. Talking about lawsuits, airbag recalls and other nonsense is not relevant. What is important is how the manufacturer responds and some companies are much better than others. Nikon has the advantage, you could say, of knowing what happens when you don't respond.

Just my opinion but good customer service, no warranty hassles, support and fast turnaround are every bit as important as megapixel count, dynamic range and noise levels.

No, that's not true. A lower contrast step has a lower chance of being visible. Think about the fact that real photos have actual detail in them and aren't texture-less walls.

A step is more likely to show up *on top of* or *against* real-world detail in an image *if* it's high contrast enough.

Sure, in a sky or smooth area, both a less contrasty & more contrasty step may show up.

And in that case, the severity may not matter.

But for many other photos, the severity and contrast of the band will determine how offensive it is.

Make sense?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 06:55 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tieu Ngao: My D750 is affected by the flare but it doesn't have the front focusing problem. Wonder what other people experience with their affected D750?

Not all D750s affected by flare necessarily front-focus, as all cameras are calibrated in the factory in order to deal with issues such as AF module displacement, variations in optics positioning, alignment, etc. So it's entirely possible that there are no deleterious AF effects for your particular unit. Also, it'll likely vary from lens to lens.

Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps we'll have to add a disclaimer to the article saying that we're not claiming that all D750s affected by flare necessarily front-focus. Or remove that section altogether...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 06:48 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael MacGillivray: This article and the comments that follow are why today’s quality assurance is less than stellar. In the 1970’s, I was in my 20’s and purchased a number of different cameras. They were built like tanks and none of them were sent in for repairs. We didn’t have a “… hope I get a good copy” mentality, or a wait for firmware to correct design flaws. That was taken care of by camera companies BEFORE they shipped product.

It’s time to put the fan boy mentality in the trash when it comes to consumer electronics. Nikon has had a number of defective releases and should hardly be cheered for removing the D750 from shelves. Of course, this issue isn’t unique to Nikon, though they seem to have moved to the head of the ‘issues’ pack. Articles like this -- that put a “what’s the big deal?” handle on the thing, should be called on it. I appreciate the fact that DP Review, no doubt, was embarrassed by their initial rating after another botched launch.

How complex were yesteryear's devices, compared to today's? How easy was it to spot a problem like this when exposing on film?

Put another way - most people are seeing the flare by switching in to live view to find the exact right angle at which it occurs. How many hundreds of film exposures would you have had to take back then to even spot the error?

Also, do you know how many total parts are in a camera today? How do you think that compares to a camera from the 1970s?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 06:45 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

mandm: If ‘every DSLR tested has inaccuracies in AF’ and ‘user-calibration’ can correct it. Why wasn’t this a problem with AF film SLR cameras that had/have no user-calibration?

For whatever reason, I particularly enjoy answering this question.

1. Because film didn't resolve as much as today's high resolution sensors, and if it did, it only did so with a low response (MTF would drop off as a function of input frequency with film, something that digital doesn't do).

2. Very few people scrutinized film the way people can pixel peep now due to easy access to 1:1 viewing on today's digital monitors.

3. Very few people took the hundreds and hundreds of shots necessary to get statistically significant data to even verify that your lens consistently back- or front-focused at certain subject distances, at certain focal lengths.

Of course the problem existed back then, it just wasn't as easy to spot. And when it was spotted, it was difficult to verify that it wasn't just randomly out of focus, at which point you'd shrug and move on.

And let's not forget we have more sub-f/2.0 lenses that retain high resolving power wide open today than we had decades ago.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 06:40 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

Glad you found it useful Average User, and thanks for speaking a lot of sense and sharing your sentiment as an actual D750 owner.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 06:35 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

jtan163: @Rishi, Barney
I imagine the DPR staff have been discussing and perhaps dreading this question, so sorry, but I'd love to know.

In light (oh crack me up...) of this phenomena and the "revelation" (confirmation?) that it occurs in many DSLRs, will shining high lumen LEDs into the vicinity of front elements become a standard DPR review test?

It seems the genie is out of the jar now and I suspect a certain class of reader will want to know about this on all future DSLRs now.

No. Personally, I may casually look for it from time to time, but it's not going to become some sort of routine test at DPR. Standardizing AF and sensor tests, among other things, are much higher priorities as they have far more implications for photography in general :)

We hope most of our audience would agree.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 06:34 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Sooner or later every manufacturer has a camera with a problem they didn't catch. Talking about lawsuits, airbag recalls and other nonsense is not relevant. What is important is how the manufacturer responds and some companies are much better than others. Nikon has the advantage, you could say, of knowing what happens when you don't respond.

Just my opinion but good customer service, no warranty hassles, support and fast turnaround are every bit as important as megapixel count, dynamic range and noise levels.

"You keep saying that (probably more than a dozen times in these comments, if not more), but I haven't seen anything indicating that any of those cameras show the issue TO THE SAME EXTENT as the D750."

Well, you can't say you don't [see it](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d750/samples/flare/Canon1DX-Flare-FullSize.jpg) now.

HowaboutRaw: some of the other folks *do* have a point -- most of the other cameras have it to such a small degree that it's not bothersome. For example, our 5D Mark III does *not* have it to a noticeable extent, and the same almost holds true for our 2nd D750. Our first D750 and the 1D X have it badly enough though that you'd have to recompose your shot if this were occurring as you're trying to get a strongly backlit shot with flare.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 04:11 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

Also, slight variances in AF module placement and flare don't *necessarily* have to be correlated if, for example, the light baffle were to fully do its job. So there might be a number of factors at play here.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 02:12 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Marooni: Dear DPREVIEW,

Until today I was you fan, but today you lost me.
This article is just an excuse for a glorified article of a faulty camera. Any of you are working for Nikon department of marketing? Because you just started to sound like them.
And what is worst, everything you wrote until now comes into questioning. That bad was your excuse for a probably paid article you wrote for D750.

Sorry guys, but you are no longer the no1 reference in the review industry.

I wish coffee made me that funny. Maybe it's because I'm drinking out of a Nikon lens mug...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 02:09 UTC
On 2014 Readers' Polls: The results are in! article (249 comments in total)

Were all the slides shot on a Nikon D750? Cuz I see flare & banding at the upper left of every slide.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 02:07 UTC as 58th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Marooni: Dear DPREVIEW,

Until today I was you fan, but today you lost me.
This article is just an excuse for a glorified article of a faulty camera. Any of you are working for Nikon department of marketing? Because you just started to sound like them.
And what is worst, everything you wrote until now comes into questioning. That bad was your excuse for a probably paid article you wrote for D750.

Sorry guys, but you are no longer the no1 reference in the review industry.

You're one funny guy :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 00:23 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Marooni: Dear DPREVIEW,

Until today I was you fan, but today you lost me.
This article is just an excuse for a glorified article of a faulty camera. Any of you are working for Nikon department of marketing? Because you just started to sound like them.
And what is worst, everything you wrote until now comes into questioning. That bad was your excuse for a probably paid article you wrote for D750.

Sorry guys, but you are no longer the no1 reference in the review industry.

Could it possibly be that when we favored a Canon body, it was b/c it was actually a great photographic tool, and when we favored a Nikon body, we did so b/c, again, it was a great photographic tool?

Or must it be that any time we favor something, it's b/c we're in that brand's pocket?

What do you think is the more *reasonable*, less conspiracy-riddled, conclusion?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 23:49 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

locke_fc: "Why we are not worried" has to be a new low for DPR's well-deserved reputation as an independent site.

Frankly, I don't know what's happening with you guys lately, but I don't like it a bit.

locke_fc: it appears you don't like it any time we have an opinion that's different from yours. That's human nature, I suppose. More importantly, you don't like when we have an opinion at all. That's an interesting perspective to have on a website dedicated to offering you expert opinions on products.

Also, consider:

(1) The problem only occurs in certain units; our 2nd unit *barely* had the issue.

(2) Even if your body has the issue, it's in rare circumstances that it's an issue.

(3) Even if your body has the issue & it does affect your photography, Nikon will fix it.

Now, please explain to us, in light of all the above (which we outlined in the article), why it's unreasonable for us to be 'not worried'.

Also, I'm curious as to whether or not you intend to start a campaign to have other manufacturers/cameras recalled for other bodies with this issue.

philharris nailed it, & by the way, do you own a D750 locke_fc? Experienced the issue? I'd imagine not. Why so passionate, then?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 23:44 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sammy Yousef: You can't sweep things under the rug with such assurances.

1. There is cost and inconvenience to the customer. Some will have a much harder time than others getting theirs serviced. Some will have to wait for a long time without a camera. Some will have to pay shipping. Some will be out of luck because they bought grey market.

2. Nikon will recoup the cost of service from subsequent sales. Which means customers pay more again.

3. There will be shots ruined. That is not and never will be the photographer's fault. Cameras that can't autofocus properly or have internal reflection issues are squarely the camera company's fault.

4. It's not the first time. There have been a long line of issues with Nikon camera. D70 blinking green LED of death. D80 exposure issues. D7000 focus issues. D800 focus alignment. D600 should be sold as a vacuum cleaner. As more customers get burnt, more move to cheaper options like their phone. The camera companies only have themselves to blame.

Right, I agree with you AFMA could be much, much better. What I was questioning was: is the factory calibration (which *must* be done b/c they can't control manufacturing tolerances such that placement, skew, etc. of optics are perfect) any better than AFMA?

The question gets more complicated when you consider there's a body-based AFMA, which some claim holds valid for all lenses, and then a lens-based AFMA, which is what's more fallible to only holding true for one focal length/subject distance (presumably b/c it's correcting for lens-based aberrations, e.g. spherical aberration, motor inaccuracy, & generally things that can change w/ focal length & subject distance).

So for the lens-based AFMA, is it better to send in to the factory with your body for the manufacturer to perform some adjustment (including an update to the lens firmware), or is their correction no more effective than per-lens AFMA the user can perform?

We really don't know, but would be very curious to find out.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 23:28 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1790 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

Every DSLR I've tested has inaccuracies in AF when you're inspecting this closely, with a setup that demands tight tolerances. 35mm f/1.4 at 25x focal length will show inaccuracies in almost every camera you test - it's more the exception than the rule if it focuses perfectly without any user-calibration, since manufacturers can't guarantee that any given copy of any particular lens will focus perfectly on your particular copy of some particular model.

So, given that this inaccuracy is seen across most cameras, given that you can fully correct for it using Fine Tune, and given that Nikon will fix it anyway, I'm having a hard time understanding how it's 'disturbing' that we're not worried.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
Total: 943, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »