Dave Oddie

Lives in United Kingdom Chester, United Kingdom
Works as a IT
Joined on Jan 23, 2002

Comments

Total: 441, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-A3 Review (209 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cheezr: So far Fuji has released 3 aps-c bayer array cameras, you would think that DxO would test their lenses now..?

I take DXO's megapixel ratings when they test cameras with a large pinch of salt. It's has always looked like pseudo science to me. Looks like their lens testing is the same. A company born of the web that had an idea that now people treat as gospel. Has anyone ever subjected their testing methodology to scrutiny?

The fact they won't test lenses on x-trans (I never knew that before as I don't go looking for tests on their site) shows their methodology must be flawed.

I mean if you can't test a Sony G-master on a Nikon how the hell do you know it's a brilliant lens? Unlike the days of film you can't stick a role of Kodachrome 25 into the cameras and so have a "sensor" that is neutral. Testing in-camera means you test the lens AND sensor.

That said lens testing can be done independent of cameras so the lack of Fuji lens tests seems very odd.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

Raymond Cho: As a Nikon shooter, it would be nice to experience with a different manufacturer. I would enjoy a smaller setup so their DX lenses are probably on the larger size compared to Fuji or Olympus esp their primes and the more compact zooms. If Nikon are going to provide a smaller lineup of lenses that;s more expenses incurred I rather head to a different manufacturer and expense with them.

You are right and make the same point I made when Sony first came out with the E mount which if you remember was at first aps-c not full frame.

When I saw the E-mount as an A-mount user myself my first thought was, well if I want a more compact high quality camera I may as well look at Olympus, Panasonic or Fuji because E-mount is just another different lens mount. Using adapters is just not what I want to do.

I can't understand why no manufacturer has gone mirrorless on the exact same mount as their d-slrs. Sure the bodies would need to be as deep as their d-slrs but there were plenty of tiny 35mm rangefinder film cameras from the likes of Olympus and Minolta.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 23:56 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

wwc: I have a couple questions that I mentioned in a post in the Sony Full-Frame forum. First: the 85/1.8 lens seems to have quite noticeable of chromatic aberration, which is quite noticeable in the corners. In comparison, the a7 test shot, which used the 55/1.8, had no visible CA. Would a "good" (non-decentered) copy of 85/1.8 have less CA?

Second, the dates in the EXIF data for the a9 test shots say they were taken on June 2, which was well before the original review was published. Is that right?

I am pretty sure the Imaging Resource web site uses Sigma 70mm macro lenses to test. At least they used to (I have not checked recently).

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: So much for mirrorless sensor-based AF being the be all and end all of AF.

How come we have never heard of such trouble when you tested DSLRs?

"DSLRs require focus calibration, and more so than mirrorless."

"More so" than mirrorless? Mirrorless cameras aren't supposed to require ANY focus calibration because they focus directly on the sensor. Furthermore I know of no mirrorless cameras that allow focus calibration so you can't calibrate one "more" or "less" so even if you wanted to!

Chris A's post was pointing out that despite the theory mirrorless cameras give perfect focus, here we have a mirrorless camera and lens combination that has focusing issues.

Did you really not get that?

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 09:02 UTC
On article Hot mess: Remembering the Leica M8 (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: These throwback articles are interesting but for me underline one fundamental truth, that old digital camera of this "vintage" are basically crap compared to what we have today.

This is ironic in a way because an even older Leica film rangefinders will never be obsolete so long as film is still made and able to be processed. You can use modern film and lenses with your older film camera but you are stuck with that outdated 10mp sensor with an M8. The same applies to other makes as well of course not just Leica but the virtually guaranteed obsolescence of a digital camera means I'd be far happier to have shelled out the amount of cash we are talking here for an M7 than for an M8

Well crap was probably an exaggeration but even though I am also predominantly a base ISO shooter myself my Sony A77 offers much better image quality than my original Sony A100 though if you look in my small dpr gallery you will find some photos that look pretty acceptable shot on the A100.

Would I buy another A100 off eBay for a knock down price? Nope. Would I buy an Olympus OM2 film camera (a camera I used for years before going digital) for probably quite a bit more? Maybe.

Cameras of the A100 & M8 era were in many ways technologically at the leading edge when they were released and so prices were high but unlike film cameras their value now is in my opinion limited as they are held back by the sensors. We know their limitations. Yes they still work and still deliver the same level of image quality as they did then but I don't see any fascination in trying them out by say buying a Nikon D300 unlike resurrecting an OM2.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 20:34 UTC
On article Hot mess: Remembering the Leica M8 (155 comments in total)

These throwback articles are interesting but for me underline one fundamental truth, that old digital camera of this "vintage" are basically crap compared to what we have today.

This is ironic in a way because an even older Leica film rangefinders will never be obsolete so long as film is still made and able to be processed. You can use modern film and lenses with your older film camera but you are stuck with that outdated 10mp sensor with an M8. The same applies to other makes as well of course not just Leica but the virtually guaranteed obsolescence of a digital camera means I'd be far happier to have shelled out the amount of cash we are talking here for an M7 than for an M8

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 16:23 UTC as 30th comment | 8 replies
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: Of course it makes for the AF on the crop body to cover a "larger" area than on the full frame body. In essence they cover the "same" area, it's just one camera cuts out the outside area. I get that the touch-focus can be useful, but Nikon's 3D tracking was already excellent IMO and I don't feel a need for the touch option when I shoot.

Sorry but is there any actual useful point to this part of the comment? :-

"Of course it makes for the AF on the crop body to cover a "larger" area than on the full frame body. In essence they cover the "same" area, it's just one camera cuts out the outside area."

When using FF or APS-C you have a frame to compose your photo in. Use the same sized AF array in both and in the APS-C camera, it will cover more of the frame you see in the viewfinder. This potentially makes it better at tracking moving subjects across the entire viewfinder than the FF camera where the subject can move outside the parts of the viewfinder covered by the AF sensor.

The fact physically they cover the same sized area of a sensor is neither here nor there. It's a usability issue and as the article states quite clearly "the 51-point AF system provided enough coverage so that I could even place subjects close to the EDGE OF THE FRAME."

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 13:03 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Canon EOS 80D (265 comments in total)
In reply to:

EcoR1: But the asteroid hit already.

Very good!

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

O5iris: Neural networks and machine learning are extremely helpful and interesting in countless scientific applications but this is just lame... what's next, a camera-copter which flies to location and takes all the pictures for you without you leaving your seat? where is the fun and creativity in this? what about the subjective mind and interpretation of the photographer? this is idiotic to say the least.

People probably said the same thing when they first put exposure meters in cameras. Just not the same as estimating the EV level and setting the exposure yourself.

Probably said it again when cameras became able to set aperture and shutter automatically based on the meter reading to save you the trouble. And again when auto-focus came about and again when stabilized lenses and bodies reduced the need for tripods. It's jut no fun anymore not lugging them around!

Seems to me this program is just another step along the way of automation. Most dslrs have some form of matrix metering that try and analyze the scene albeit in a much less sophisticated way than this so if you use that and happily let the camera meter scenes and focus etc I am not sure I see your objection.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 15:23 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (693 comments in total)

"This, and its limited application, is why we won't be testing the X3F-only Super Fine Detail mode, which shoots seven images at different exposures then combines them to create an image with greater dynamic range (both through capturing a broader range of tones and the noise-cancelling effect of image combination)."

So you won't test a mode of this camera that potentially yields the best results. Did DPR test the sensor shift mechanism on Oly's 4/3 cameras that delivers a cira 40mp image? I think so.

Apart from the lack of consistency NOT testing a specialist mode on a camera that (in this case) offers the landscape photographer superior results is just plain bizarre and the justification for not testing it is quite frankly ludicrous.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2017 at 19:33 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

T3: With every passing day, the myth that "Sony has no lenses" evaporates. Up next, super telephotos. But super telephotos aren't exactly mainstream lenses, everyday-use, so it makes sense that they'd save those for later.

I don't think lenses costing $1700 & $2200 qualify as mainstream everyday use lenses either for most people.

These are Zeiss prices and while they may perform as such they may as well not exist for many potential users at those prices. A Canon16-35L costs around $999 and yes its an F4 but it is an excellent lens. Sony is not going to entice your average amateur to the range with lens prices like this.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: Personally, I'm not buying into the speculation of Canon doing a FF mirrorless camera anytime soon or even at all. I believe that Canon will go its own way, as it has in the past, and develope their OVF's intelligent viewfinder into a system that offers all of the advantages of EVFs but without the disadvantages, such as excessive battery drain, etc.. A DSLR equipped with their DPAF sensor and an OVF like the one I described would pretty much put an end to the FF mirrorless/DSLR debates.

Often, the solution to a problem hides in plain sight. I think that Canon's intelligent viewfinder system for DSLRs is one of those. 😎

I am not sure what you refer to by "OVF's intelligent viewfinder" but unless it offers the wysiwig view of an EVF it can't replicate the that advantage of EVF.

And as to the solution being in plain sight, surely the plain sight solution to (the myth of) excessive battery drain is not to come up with some complex viewfinder technology but to simply improve battery capacity (which we see happening all the time as it is).

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

bmoag: I am leaving on a trip today. In deciding what cameras to bring I had an Oly MD10ii with 14-150 lens in one hand and a Canon T7i with 16-135 in the other: they weigh the same, as in they weigh the same, so I am not sure where the bulkitude advantage is in mirrorless. My full frame weighs even more and is just too big and heavy for many uses. The "problem" with optical full frame dSLRs for many of us is weight more than physical size. I can not believe that an optical dSLR, particularly if video is tossed (Leica did), can not be made at a reasonable size and weight, like that of an advanced 35mm film slr--so no change in lens mount. Build stabilization into the camera and lens bulk goes down as well. If Nikon goes mirrorless they would be unwise to maintain the current F mount.

I agree. Have people forgotten about 35mm film cameras alike the Olympus OM1/2 and Pentax MX/ME?

These things (particularly the Pentax) were TINY compared to many modern DLSR's and they had all the mechanics in the body to wind on and accommodate a roll of film.

A Pentax MX was 135.8 × 82.5 × 49.3 mm and weighed 495g
A Sony A7 RII is 127 x 96 x 60 mm and weighs 625g

Now the extra depth of the Sony will be due to the grip which the Pentax does not have but what this shows is it is possible to build a small camera with a deeper flange as all a Pentax equivalent of the Sony would need is a 49.3 deep body and narrower grip. Or no grip at all if they went retro.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 16:45 UTC

As the article points out the issue between the two systems is currently focusing. “Legacy” lenses don’t focus well on mirrorless bodies.

That doesn’t mean mirrorless must have short flange distance. If you put the required mechanics into a lens to work well with CDAF what difference does it make what the flange distance is?

So for Canikon the solution seems obvious. Go with the same flange distance still allowing current lenses to be mounted without a hideous adapter while building up a range of native mirrorless lenses that work best mechanically.

To not do this seems nuts as witnessed by Sony who angered a lot of A mount customers forcing the use of an adapter if they convert, just so people could mount not just A mount but Canon and other lenses also via an adapter. Which is ironic because of course they ALL don’t work as well either.

Sony may have felt they had to do this to appeal to others than just A mount/Minolta users but Canikon don’t have to do that.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 16:24 UTC as 104th comment

I love historical documentary photography like this.

Along with a rather inspired History teacher it was similar photographs from the time of Brunel and the latter part of the Industrial revolution that brought history to life for me (no stuffy Kings & Queens lol).

I have always been drawn to suge images because of the largely lost industrial world (in the western world at least) they document.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 15:30 UTC as 25th comment
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)

The Sony 135 STF has a secondary aperture that controls the amount of blur with values ranging from T4.5 to T6.7. So you get to chose how much blur you want.

Does the new Sony 100mm allow you to do the same? I don't know if it does or not but if it does, then I don't get the complaint that there is too much blur. You pick how much you want.

The fact on the 135 you are at T6.7 obviously doesn't matter from a d.o.f point of view as in it being too deep because the lens is still blurring the background for you.

Unless you can't do this on the 100mm or the blur even at smaller apertures is still too strong for some tastes I don't really understand the criticism.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 11:12 UTC as 82nd comment | 1 reply
On article 2017 Roundup: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

GjB: Within a few more years this discussion is moot. With the exception of working pros and a declining number of enthusiasts - smartphone will reign supreme in image capture.

I thought that the optical lens quality and optical zoom would be the moat defending the SLR and MILC segments. Wrong.

Imagine an iPhone 9 or 10 with FIVE fixed focal length lenses of (equivalent)

24===35
50
70===105

Software will do the rest including (through image processing algorithms) effective infinite zoom within range as well as probably some interesting depth and re-focusing effects. Game over.

Software eats hardware.

The "real" camera market will decline. And the economies of scale in reverse will see a declining number of players and reduced revenues for innovation.

Roll on the iPhone 10.

@JackM "Physics is physics. Larger sensors and lenses will always outperform smaller ones."

Well that is indeed the theory but check out virtually any new m43 or aps/c camera at low iso and spot the noise. It's a futile exercise because from a practical point of view in the real world, you can't see any.

Sure a 42mp m43 sensor would be noisier and then some than a FF sensor of the same resolution but how many people are truly in need of such high resolution?

Theories are fine but often they don't stack up or have an impact in the real world. I am not saying I agree smartphones are the future for the serious hobbyist or pro but for many they are already good enough to negate the need for compact camera.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 14:54 UTC

Why does it matter how much it costs? At the end of the related article here:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/1937765842/sony-a9-why-being-better-might-not-be-enough

It says "Hansen, having already moved from Nikon to Canon..."

So this tells us pros switch systems occasionally. I doubt that was a cheap move but I also doubt Hansen paid for it himself either. There must have been some compelling reason to move from Nikon to Canon regardless of cost and if Sony can provide one to switch to them, then (some) pros will switch.

I think the cost of switching systems is far more relevant to amateurs like me than pros but even then we amateurs don't have to replace the entire lens lineup in one go and can phase the move as funds allow.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 14:37 UTC as 175th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)

Seems to me if Sony fills the gap in the lens range there is nothing to stop pros from switching because despite all the obstacles to switching outlined in the article, at the very end it says "Hansen, having already moved from Nikon to Canon....".

So pros do switch systems despite all the current investment in their current system.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 10:16 UTC as 181st comment | 1 reply

If Sony want to chase the pro sports shooter and wildlife photographer then why not go the whole hog and come up with a form factor for the body that is more ergonomic?

What would be wrong in making the A9 look almost identical to an A99ii or any other traditional looking DSLR which is far easier to hold with big lenses?

Why are Sony so clearly wedded to this form factor for this range of FF mirrorless cameras? Looks like a case of form over function here.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 14:55 UTC as 14th comment | 17 replies
Total: 441, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »