Dave Oddie

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

Comments

Total: 409, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1492 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkAllen: You guys didn't fall on your head and drop the camera before you wrote this review did you?
Have a look at every comment below with a user feedback of over 10, and see what your readers think of your rating. You have to admit that they can't ALL be wrong...

"How many of them have used other systems? Particularly, the latest most recent ones?

For example the a99 II is a God-sent miracle in terms of focus next to a 5D classic. Doesn't say much does it?"

Well exactly, what matters is how it performs in absolute terms and on that score your review is at odds with just about every other one I have seen and with user experiences (many of whom are suggesting why you had the issues you did).

I tend to discount user responses to a degree as some will be biased but other reviewers? I read one today comparing that compared it to a Canon 5D (the 30mp one, 7fps), Pentax K1 and Nikon 810. The Sony won the AF category.

On imaging resource the sub tile of their 2nd field test is:

"A99 II continues to impress thanks to excellent autofocus".

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 15:02 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1492 comments in total)
In reply to:

ocean1: I expected in deph analysis for a complex and inovative camera such as this and the review is 8 pages , not good !
Bring back multiple page reviews at least for cameras in this level and keep it simple for rebels and the like.
If you think that big reviews make us bored you mished the whole point of dpreview as a site . I am reading this site from the days of Phil and I might not doing so in the future if the reviews going to be so small, just a suggestion.
Also this is the first time that so many users of a camera reports the opposite that your review suggest. And not just the users but the whole Internet ! I usually trust dpreview reviews but this is puzzling.
This makes me puzzled and I am waiting for an in hand experience at a show that going to be made in a few days in my Country. Also I am waiting for the review of Camera Store Tv . These guys always have good points to add in a review .

I agree. The days of in depth reviews are long gone on this site.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: I still own my Dimage A1, which is 2003 tech, and the worlds 1st bridgecam with anti-shake (image stabilizer) built-into back then, 5 MP and a great zoom lens.

It features a 2/3" sensor, so it was bigger than these days 1/1.8" sensors back than - and is the direct Dimage 7 Series Sucessor. Into the End, the A1 was all the Dimage 7 Series was, but much better & more advanced, and it was also being succeeded by the A2 & A200 Series, albeit the A200 was a lowcost Bridgecam back into it's day - and plastique-drastique, mediocre build quality - no more being a al-mg body.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1

.edit. my DSC-S75 is still fine and working like new.

But later, the Olympus C-8080 WZ (Widezoom) 2004 have had the best lens of the Bridgecam crowd (5x Zoom & 8 MP) and was a year later being dethroned by the Sony DSC-R1, with Carl Zeiss T* 24-120/2.8-4.8 Zoom, and (almost) APS-C Sensor size.

I do still use & like my R1 today, occasionally.

cosinaphile, Sony got their IBIS off Minolta who invented it and who Sony bought. Oly went for it later and Panny only recently. Panny didn't have it at all for quite some time.

As to IBIS itself I can remember to this day what sold me on it. I took some photos at Manchester Science museum indoor at silly slow shutter speeds with my A1 and they were all sharp. I was amazed. That was 1st gen IBIS. Repeated the experience at the Lowry museum some years later with my A100, amazing again.

The technology works. Like AF is now universal, no idea why IBIS is not also.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: I still own my Dimage A1, which is 2003 tech, and the worlds 1st bridgecam with anti-shake (image stabilizer) built-into back then, 5 MP and a great zoom lens.

It features a 2/3" sensor, so it was bigger than these days 1/1.8" sensors back than - and is the direct Dimage 7 Series Sucessor. Into the End, the A1 was all the Dimage 7 Series was, but much better & more advanced, and it was also being succeeded by the A2 & A200 Series, albeit the A200 was a lowcost Bridgecam back into it's day - and plastique-drastique, mediocre build quality - no more being a al-mg body.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1

.edit. my DSC-S75 is still fine and working like new.

But later, the Olympus C-8080 WZ (Widezoom) 2004 have had the best lens of the Bridgecam crowd (5x Zoom & 8 MP) and was a year later being dethroned by the Sony DSC-R1, with Carl Zeiss T* 24-120/2.8-4.8 Zoom, and (almost) APS-C Sensor size.

I do still use & like my R1 today, occasionally.

I had one of those. The A1 was my first digital camera and sold me on the idea of IBIS.

Which is why I went with a Sony A100 later. Not because Sony bought Minolta's camera division - I had no investment in Minolta lenses or the brand (the A1 was the first and only Minolta I ever owned having previously shot Olympus OM film cameras).

I still don't understand why the likes of Fuji, Canon and Nikon do not have IBIS. As Panasonic Oly and Sony have shown you can even combine it with in-lens VR to get even better stabilisation so there is no need for an either-or approach.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Companies MUST rethink their lenses, because people keep their digital cameras at home and use smaller equipment, like smartphones, to take more photos.
Lenses are the main problem! We live in the age where cameras shoot ISO 1 million, but still are fed with lens behemoths and designs from the film era, like, gigantic f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms are recommended stuff. C'mon!
Which company will be brave enough, visionary enough, to release three smallish f/4 of f5.6 zooms, and four f/4 primes, all tiny and small, much more portable?

Triplet Perer, I agree. Some of the fast-ish wide angle zooms are massive. Things like the Sigma 24mm F1.4 / 35mm F1.4 are huge.

In film days Olympus used to effectively make two ranges of lenses. You could have prime lenses from 21mm to 200mm that had had a filter size of 49mm!

21mm F3.5, 24mm F2.8, 28mm F3.5, 35mm F2.8, 40mm F2, 85mm F2 , 135mm F3.5 and 200mm F5.

They also had faster lenses that had 55mm filter sizes (still not massive) such as 24mm F2, 35mm F2, 135mm F2.8 and 200mm F4.

Today if I were a Canon user I'd take their stabilized 24mm F2.8 and 35mm F2 over any of the F1.4's around any day. For the limited time I need the extra 2 or 1 stop of light respectively the high ISO performance of D-slrs is good enough and certainly means for me the extra weight of the modern F1.4's (never mind the cost) is easily ignored.

As a Sony APS-C A mount shooter I myself use a 30mm F2.8 SAM and a 85mm F2.8 SAM and these lenses weigh virtually nothing and are very sharp.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 14:03 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1492 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeDeane: Semi transparent mirror is a no-no in my humble opinion - Canon had that back in the 60'[s with it's PELLIX...and it bombed....not enough light entered the viewfinder for most people....MD

Canon had it a lot later than the 60's. They brought out an EOS 600 series in the 80's. Just like the Sony's it was blindingly fast compared to other similarly priced cameras for continuous shooting despite having to wind film . No doubt it had other drawbacks being an OVF and Pelix that the Sony does not, but at least get your facts right.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
On article Feisty upstart: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T20 (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ribbit74: One important thing to note is that the USB interface is still USB 2.0, not USB 3.0 like on the X-T2. So transferring the larger RAW files will require a bit of patience.

"So you actually physically connect your camera to a computer as opposed to plugging the card into a reader?!?"

MacBook Pro user ???? ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 17:44 UTC

We've "reached out" to Olympus for comment.

Ugh! How about some plain English? We have asked Olympus for comment. Or: We have asked Olympus to comment.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 13:57 UTC as 21st comment | 10 replies
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (333 comments in total)
In reply to:

quiquae: >There are abbreviated depth-of-field markings set against the focusing scale, applying to full-frame cameras (they're not accurate for APS-C format cameras, as sensor size affects DoF).

I can't believe a DPR reviewer, of all people, is making such a stupid mistake. The DoF is exactly the same at any given focal length and physical aperture, regardless of the size of the sensor.

Do this thought experiment: a 20Mpix APS-C sensor should be optically exactly the same as a 51Mpix full frame sensor with outer edges taped over. Taping over the outer edges of the sensor, in turn, should be optically exactly the same as just cropping the image in post-processing. Does cropping an image in Lightroom change its DoF? No, right?

What APS-C does give you is deeper DoF than full frame given same aperture and ANGLE OF VIEW, not focal length. A 35mm f/1.4 lens on Canon APS-C has the same angle of view and DoF as a 56mm f/2 lens on full frame, for example.

"Given the same FL and the same distance to the subject, DOF is determined by the circle of confusion, the latter is inversely proportional to the crop factor. "

You won't have the same distance to the subject. If you do you get different images with the apc-c version a cropped version of the FF version.

So your point is irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 09:36 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I have mine still, and it still works, as do its own special batteries and their charger. This is pre RoHS build quality for you.

I took a few fruit bowl etcetera snaps a few weeks ago, and the image quality from RAW still impresses. It is in fact solid, well-built and very nice to use, or at least I think so, and I prefer it to the later E20 whose results were not so good.

When you think about it, with a few exceptions, the early digital camera WAS an Olympus- theirs were just so much better on all levels.

The disgusting shame of the 4/3rds decision and that tiny sensor that haunts Man still, rather than a full frame or at least APS-C sensor that works with their 35mm lens range- what are they thinking really? degraded the act of photography as much as anything ever has, because why do worse like the company when you can suceed, as they obviously can, on all levels.
I had the accessory lenses, wide and long, but not longer, but they do reduce resolution so not recommended by me!!

The other reason they went 4/3 is they decided that digital allowed them to go back to first principles.

Oly thought what is it that means the format of the sensor must be of 36x24 dimensions and concluded nothing!

Remember that is a historical accident itself with Oskar Barnack hijacking 35mm movie film to use in his Leica.

Olympus also didn't have a legacy of AF lenses like Canon and Nikon that were designed for full frame so were not constrained by the lens mount.

They concluded a 4/3 sensor would give enough resolution to match 35mm film if not then but eventually so why require larger FF lenses?

Were they right? I'd say almost. While people marvel at the resolution of current 42mp and 50mp FF camera few actually need it but at the moment APS-C being slightly larger than 4/3 does seen to offer an advantage.

I admire Oly's decision to go back to first principles and Nikon and Canon were lazy IMO. When they came out with APS-C SLR's there were no dedicated lenses remember.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

sunjester: Oddly enough you could say 5 good things and 4 bad things about every digital camera ever made.

Maybe but I think the ones mentioned for the Sony are fair and so are not a contrived list as such.

That is good going for DPR when you look at some of the Pro's and Con's lists in the reviews ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
On article OWC's Thunderbolt 3 Dock adds 13 ports to your MacBook (151 comments in total)

$279.00! Decimal point is one place too far to the right.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:41 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-3040 Zoom (119 comments in total)

If you look at the spec of this camera you can see under metering it had something called multi area spot metering.

This was something that first appeared on the Olympus OM4 film camera. A camera which I owned. As the name suggests it allowed you to take several spot meter readings from across the frame and it would average them out. So you could ignore very dark or light parts of the image (if you wanted) and get it to average out the best exposure for the rest of the scene.

Olympus has always been an enthusiast brand even with so called P&S cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 14:53 UTC as 60th comment

If people are hung up on the price then why not the same reaction to any camera above 1600 in price, the price of a Pentax K-1?

Nikon D500? Useless isn't it! I costs more than a Pentax K-1 and has a puny aps-c sensor. Isn't a D500 actually more expensive than a Nikon D750? Pah! Useless!

Of course it isn't useless. People will buy it for what it can do regardless of the sensor size.

Which is exactly the same for this Oly. Both the D500 and it are sophisticated cameras. Their smaller sensors bring advantages as well as disadvantages.

The fact you can buy a full frame camera for less than these cameras is of no consequence if you do not want what comes with a full frame sized sensor (much less d.o.f and the need for long focal length lenses for action/wildlife).

I don't own an Oly camera so am no fanboy. I just don't get the angst.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2016 at 20:59 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bullfinchphoto: MacBook Pro was actually made mainly for a Pro users (its price was higher comparing to MacBook), e.g. professional photographers, artists, and designers. Pro photographers used to have CF cards in their cameras, no use of SD card slot. So, what to complain about? And who is still using SD cards slot? Another point, when Apple removed FireWire port, any noise in social media? And CD-reader? Please stop complaining, there many other laptops on the market with SD slots and USBs you all love, who knows what they need will buy new MBPro without any grumbling.

Are you being serious? Because it's a Mac Book "PRO" it's for professionals and because professionals use CF that makes it OK for apply to remove the SD slot. Really?

That is an even lamer argument than the excuses Schiller dreamt up.

Plenty of professionals will be using SD cards with Nikon D800's and the like.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 22:00 UTC

There was a time when Apple products represented the best ergonomic and user experience around.

Now they go backwards making something a little more inconvenient to use. And it is the attention to detail on the little things that make great to use products.

Removing the SD slot does not represent good ergonomic design so no, it doesn't represent a "step forward".

SD slots are not cumbersome, they aren't slow and yes "more consumer cameras have SD" so why make the majority of consumers use a card reader or faff about using the port on the camera body (often under a fiddly cover for weather sealing)?

Wireless transfers can be slow and in any case far fewer cameras have wireless anyway so they are catering for the minority. Why not just provide both wireless AND and SD slot as well as the ports they have?

If Apple are really bothered about having to "only pick one" someone should remind them multi-format slots that take CF, SD and MS have been around for a while.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 21:54 UTC as 306th comment
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (870 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimT999: It's such a surprise to read the DP comments. So many folks who know exactly what's wrong with the new Apple laptops. ... But none of the commenters (including myself) have used these new machines. We don't know how fast these laptops are. Don't know how well integrated the new touch bar functionality and the OS are.

The folks who harp about this or that being missing don't get how Apple works, their all-around approach. These machines are gonna hit the sweet spot for most photographer users. And the fact that the new 13" model is about the same size and weight as the 13" Air (but with retina display and all that power) is particularly appealing to photographers like me who travel.

"There is no reason why just SD should be catered for."

Yes there is. It is by far the most common form of flash storage.

Just because a minority of cameras and other devices use some other far less common form of flash storage is no reason to remove support for SD cards.

Apple currently seems to be in the business of inconveniencing people first with the removal of the headphone jack off the iphone 7, now this.

While you can argue the technical merits of doing either (though personally I think the arguments are weak), practically from a users point of view these represent an inconvenience. Ignoring and/or annoying users and adopting an "I know best" attitude is a good way to drive them away.

Some people love Apple products and will still buy but for those not in the fold but looking, like me, I am less likely to buy now.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (870 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimT999: It's such a surprise to read the DP comments. So many folks who know exactly what's wrong with the new Apple laptops. ... But none of the commenters (including myself) have used these new machines. We don't know how fast these laptops are. Don't know how well integrated the new touch bar functionality and the OS are.

The folks who harp about this or that being missing don't get how Apple works, their all-around approach. These machines are gonna hit the sweet spot for most photographer users. And the fact that the new 13" model is about the same size and weight as the 13" Air (but with retina display and all that power) is particularly appealing to photographers like me who travel.

"I can't see how people have a need to plug an SD card into their Macbooks more than once or twice a day.

It is just as easy to connect the camera directly to the Mac."

Not its not. That requires a separate lead an on mine fiddling about to open the weather sealed port that hides the USB port.

Even at home with my desktop I always take out the SD card and slot it into the reader in the side of my monitor. It's just quicker, easier and also faster as the reader on the monitor is USB3 whereas the camera USB port (as are many still) is USB2.

However the real issue is what you do "on the go". I have always fancied a MacBook as a portable machine to back up and edit photos but the idea I will have to remember to take the card reader then find it when I want to upload is as good as reason as any not to buy one.

Leaving it out simply makes for more inconvenience. So why do that? Ergonomic design is supposed to do the opposite. Bizarre decision to leave it out.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I would have liked a mirrorless camera to replace my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens, that I use most because of the weight but last week finally gave up on the idea because no camera mount or lens combination suits me better. I ended up buying a Nikon D610 and Nikkor 20mm f/1.8, thereby saving 296g, too little but better than nothing and of course better IQ.

I have an EVF on my Olympus Pen but I do not like them at all. The A99 II weighs 849g, as much as my D300. In my opinion this only underlines the pointlessness of it, no need even to bother looking at its features.

Ever since digital, there has been a fashion in bigger and heavier which IMO is madness. Reviewers describe the new Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 as lightweight. Are they in the pockets of the manufacturers? So far, among the worst are those PRO lenses on MFT, whose size and weight is out of all proportion.

If I want to strengthen my arm muscles, I prefer to go to the gym, not buy a camera for the purpose.

@keepreal The A99II is smaller than the original A99 it replaces and weighs 1 gram less than a Nikon 610.

If weight is an issue why go for the Nikon 20mm F1.8 @ 355g? The Nikon F2.8 is 270g and as you were using a 12-24 obviously didn't need the speed.

The Sony 20mm F2.8 weighs 285g, so if weight is the issue you could have saved yourself 69g total over your 610/F1.8 with an A99II/F2.8.

Saying the A99II is "pointless" because it weighs too much is just ludicrous particularly since you shot yourself in the foot and bought a heavier combination.

As to the EVF, an advantage of that is there is no mirror slap vibration which when you get to 42mp can be an issue. There are other advantages as well but you should be aware of those already if you have an Oly Pen.

The fact you don't like EVF's also doesn't mean the camera is "pointless". Your dislike of EVF's is just your personal preference and plenty of other people get on fine with them, many seeing them as an advantage.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

slick83: This is going to be pain to clean.

Didn't you notice they supply a couple of special brushes to clean it with?

And if you lose one no doubt they will supply you another for $2000.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 10:00 UTC
Total: 409, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »