Dave Oddie

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

Comments

Total: 380, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (85 comments in total)

The overall tenet of this article is undermined by the actual price of the camera.

It comes across as although the XE2S is using some slightly out of date technology mainly the sensor and video it represents somewhat of a bargain.

If you buy it with a 27mm pancake and you are talking £768 total in the UK.

A Panasonic GX8 which has IBIS with 20mm F1.7 pancake , 4K video and 20mp is only £30 more expensive for example.

An Oly ELP-7 with 17mm F2.8 pancake AND the optional EVF accessory is £155 cheaper.

If the Fuji combination was priced as the Oly one, then I think the article would have more of a point.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 15:46 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On article 6 tips for better wildflower photos (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

WilliamJ: Oh my ! I've stopped just after reading "Choose the right gear for the job" thinking in myself: oh no, not again !!!

Do people writing for dpreview readers think we are all dumbs like stones, or what ? I can't bear any longer this sort of stupidity. And what's next ? The as well spoiled "do your homeworks" ?

I might not have phrased it as Williamj did but there is very little on actual technique here. Three out of six pages are gear, homework, tread lightly.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 10:54 UTC
On article Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences (397 comments in total)

I wonder if Sony will come out with a BSI version of a 24mp sensor to give an upgraded A7 II for those who don't need 42mp?

Would seem logical given they went for the 12mp S version for lower noise etc.

Then again as a long time Sony A mount user Sony "upgrades" are often not very logical!

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 13:23 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: So this will have a f.o.v equivalent of 52mm on APS-C and 70mm on m4/3.

Useless focal lengths IMO. Yes I know some people like 50mm "standard" lens but it should really be about 42mm equiv and 70mm equiv on m43 is neither one thing nor the other.

Why they don't make a 28mm or 30mm that would actually function as a true standard for Aps-c and a 20mm for m43?

M43 is always short changed when manufacturers do this. Sticking a m43 mount on the end of lens with a focal length clearly designed for aps-c is a cheap way of tapping into another market but if I were a m43 user I would not want this lens. Though slower, lenses like the 45mm (so 90mm eqiv f.o.v) are much more sensible.

Juck, grow up. Keyboard warrior name calling is childish.

Simon Says, you obviously missed the "IMO" bit in (in my opinion) in my original post and where I said ," I know some people like 50mm "standard", so clearly I was expressing my opinion here that I don't.

If you want more detail, to get the same perspective and view as your eye sees (which is what you want from a standard lens in my opinion) you need a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the sensor which for APS-C is about 28mm and on FF about 42mm. It's why Pentax make a full frame 43mm standard lens.

Many moons ago when shooting film my first SLR I had a 50mm lens and that is all I had for some time but I quickly found it frustrating. It was a different view than what I saw.

So a 35mm lens on Aps-c which is 52mm equiv which is slightly narrower than 50mm so moves even further away from the ideal - in my opinion (OK?).

I currently use a Sony 30mm on my aps-c camera and find it ideal.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 11:03 UTC

So this will have a f.o.v equivalent of 52mm on APS-C and 70mm on m4/3.

Useless focal lengths IMO. Yes I know some people like 50mm "standard" lens but it should really be about 42mm equiv and 70mm equiv on m43 is neither one thing nor the other.

Why they don't make a 28mm or 30mm that would actually function as a true standard for Aps-c and a 20mm for m43?

M43 is always short changed when manufacturers do this. Sticking a m43 mount on the end of lens with a focal length clearly designed for aps-c is a cheap way of tapping into another market but if I were a m43 user I would not want this lens. Though slower, lenses like the 45mm (so 90mm eqiv f.o.v) are much more sensible.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 10:36 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

lacix: I wonder if this movie could be done much easier with today’s digital technology – Maybe even with the popular A7S II 4K ?

If he were shooting today he might not need such a fast lens but don't forget its use also had an effect on the character of the film with actors having to keep still etc i.e."the director felt this helped convey the stilted 18th century atmosphere".

Making life easy sometimes means you miss something e.g. using a zoom means you miss the different perspective of a fixed focal length lens when you move toward the subject.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 13:13 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (288 comments in total)

"The G7 X II does not support an EVF, unlike Sony's RX100 III/IV, which have a clever display that pops up like a flash. "

So why isn't the lack of an EVF in the negatives column? The fact the G5 X has one which the review seems to be using as an excuse is irrelevant . It is not pocketable whereas the Sony's are.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 17:45 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

Niala2: G-Master
- f1.4/ 42mm
- f1.2 / 70mm (or slightly less)
are what I'm really hoping for ! (Any road-map known?)
I don't consider 50/55mm to be a good in-between of what the above would mean to me.

The G-Master 85 is for me far superior to Canon's 1.2 85mmM2 but I always found 70mm at f1.2mm to be missing complement.

For me "normal-view" at 50mm is too narrow, 35 too large. 42mm? YESs! (Sorry-lol)
The 55 1.7 was finally good enough, with strait Eye-AF more than just a bonus.
A valid 28mm would have been logic.
Wide-open 42 and 70mm ; that would not only be spectacular, but allow new possibilities, and it would have avoided that feeling of unnecessary, abundant redundancy.
If indeed it proves to be the worth it's weight and size.., eventually it will replace my 55. But only maybe. Lol. But that really calls for comparison photos that should be really, really easy to provide by reviewers.
(Bad cats eye, true bokeh etc.: we all know how easy this should be COMPARED vs speculated)

It's about the framing. 42mm means when you put the camera to your eye you see a natural perspective pretty much as your eye sees.

I used to use 35mm as standard many years ago as I didn't like 50mm but found the same as Niala2 that 35mm was too much the other way.

I have been using a 28mm (on APS-C) as my standard lens lately (so 42mm equiv f.o.v) and I find it ideal.

If it was 35mm equivalent if when walking along taking landscapes, when I decided I had a shot I wanted to take, I'd bring the camera up to my eye and then find I would have to move and the photo ends up with a slightly different perspective.

Cropping after the event is no good either. I don't know anyone who takes many shots thinking "I'll crop that later". You want to take the photo you see now.

I also have a 16-80 zoom and have run a program that analyses the focal lengths and other data of my photos and it is striking how many taken with that lens are around the 40mm mark.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 10:31 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: "Empty words? Check the 5DS review, the a7R II review, the D500 review, D7200 review, the a6300 review, and the D810 review. The D810 has a 200/4 sequence, albeit at ISO 2000 equivalent, and a different 'test', so it's not directly comparable"
So, the reviews says himself, for the D810, the test was different they can't be compared.
a7R II? The test used a F4 lens (Pentax a 2.8)-not comparable, I think.
D500? it's an apc camera so not comparable-The Autofocus page doesn't state the lens used for the test.
D7200-it's an apc camera so not comparable. Lenses used were f.28 (on an apc sensor) and F4
Sony a6300-another apc camera-different category so not comparable. Lens used F4 (on an apc sensor).
Canon 5DS-Lens used for test on autofocus page not mentioned.

"Because DPR groups cameras into categories so apc and FF aren't comparable."

Nonsense. Some arbitrary categorisation by a web site doesn't affect how fast a camera focuses or how well a camera tracks focus. They are absolute measures.

If DOF makes it easier or harder to focus depending on format so what? The focus speed and tracking ability are absolute measures. If camera A tracks better than camera B, it tracks better. End of. What size the sensor is? Irrelevant.

Yes different lenses can affect matters but I was not replying to that criticism just the notion you can't compare how fast a camera focuses because of different sized sensors. DPR could of course overcome the lens issue to a degree by buying in a set of 3rd party lenses and use those but then someone would complain Canon focuses quicker with Canon lenses or whatever.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 11:22 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: "Empty words? Check the 5DS review, the a7R II review, the D500 review, D7200 review, the a6300 review, and the D810 review. The D810 has a 200/4 sequence, albeit at ISO 2000 equivalent, and a different 'test', so it's not directly comparable"
So, the reviews says himself, for the D810, the test was different they can't be compared.
a7R II? The test used a F4 lens (Pentax a 2.8)-not comparable, I think.
D500? it's an apc camera so not comparable-The Autofocus page doesn't state the lens used for the test.
D7200-it's an apc camera so not comparable. Lenses used were f.28 (on an apc sensor) and F4
Sony a6300-another apc camera-different category so not comparable. Lens used F4 (on an apc sensor).
Canon 5DS-Lens used for test on autofocus page not mentioned.

Why are aps-c and FF cameras (or any other format such as m43) not comparable when simply talking about AF capabilities?

They all focus as fast and as accurately as they do. It's an absolute measure. If a Nikon D500 can focus faster track better than a K-1 then that is all there is to it. The size of the sensor is irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Foggy8: I am waiting for a 10mm f2 micro four thirds lens. And compactness would be nice.

" That said, many are off-put by the price for a lens that is equivalent to a 24 / 2.8 on FF"

They may be put off by the price but if so it will be because it is an expensive lens. I doubt anyone even thinks its expensive because its supposed to be equivalent to a 24 / 2.8 on FF.

I thunk Fuji lenses are expensive and Sony E-mount ones insanely so but that is simply because they cost lots of ££££, not what sensor is in the camera they fit onto.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 13:16 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (475 comments in total)
In reply to:

Spectro: the point of the story is he tired of waiting for the snapbridge app for apple iOS later this year compared to the android version.

Kind of like in the PC vs MAc days when all the software and support were on the PC devices first.

I can see your point but surely what this highlights is not just lack of software for iOS but what an awful cludge Nikon made of WiFi on the camera in the first place.

Read raindance post below for how it should be done.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 23:53 UTC

Terrorists 1, India 0.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 12:40 UTC as 29th comment
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: This camera can shoot the equivalent of 105 36 exposure films on one battery charge. How times have changed.

How so? Many old film SLR's were mechanical and used the battery for the meter only. You'd replace it once a year if that!

Those cameras also didn't stop working once the battery did run out either (later ones with electronically timed shutters were not so lucky). You had to estimate the exposure but they still worked ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1090 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: I think the review should be drawing a negative conclusion about Nikon's failure to implement any kind of IBIS.

The technology is mature and has been present in DSLRs from other manufacturers in some cases for some more than ten years. Nikon don't even have the excuse that that they're using a FF sensor and the body is very large.

"No manufacturer has yet implemented IBIS in an APS-C body, .."

That happened over 12 years ago!

Minolta did it first when it came out with the 7D in 2004 and Sony carried it on with the A100 - my first d-slr which I bought specifically because it had IBIS over a Nikon D90. My A77 has it today.

I came to appreciate IBIS based on my first digital camera which was a Minolta A1.

Pentax has also had it in aps-c d-slrs for a while.

The technology is mature. It's been around for over 12 years in APS-C d-slr photography and a bit like tilting rear screens I am baffled why it's nots on every digital camera. Nikon's aversion to it seems very strange to me.

As it it being inferior to optical stabilization well obviously your lens has to have it first , many Nikon primes do not and optical stabilization can introduce optical anomalies in the image anyway.

As IBIS advances and you buy new bodies you get upgraded IBIS but you are stuck with the OIS that came with the lens.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
On article Canon EOS 80D Field Test: Barney builds a boat (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jozef M: Sponsored content????? Yes, I've read the FAQ about this, but ..... this is playing with fire ...
I'm not liking this Canon sponsored hidden advertising.

"How is this hidden? It's clearly stated that this is Canon sponsored..."

It might not be hidden but it has no place on a supposedly independent review site. Of course how independant any of them are is open to question given they all rely on advertising but I think this is a step too far.

Calls into question the editorial independence of the site. If you want to be sponsored by Canon so earn cash off them you aren't going to be objective is the charge and despite protestations to the contrary no one will believe it.

You see it in paper magazines sometimes as well where unless you are careful you will miss the fact a "review" is actually a long drawn out advert paid for by the manufacturer. This video is no different.

It's an advert for the 80D.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: Why not using the sigma 70 mm macro and make the standard lens for all testing work since it is available for all.

I find it hard to believe you end up with more inconsistency. Two or more supposedly identical lenses have more variation between samples than completely different lenses? Really?

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
On article Unconventional COVR Photo case launches for iPhone SE (51 comments in total)

Nice idea but doesn't it only work in portrait orientation?

I am sure you can slide the lens prism back and use the phone camera as normal for landscape orientated shots but not every candid or street shot is shot in portrait orientation, especially groups of people.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 07:20 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

69camaroSS: I am not sure why you would get an RX 10 over a Sony A6000 + Tamron 18-200mm (24-300). It would have better image quality and the crop factor advantage would make up for the slower lens. And you have the option of upgrading later.

I think a test of an RX10II and an aps-c body such as the A6300 with a similar zoom would be very interesting.

I suspect it is not as cut & dried as people may think due to the Zeiss lens on the RX10 being sharp. Larger sensors get more from lenses.

You only have to look at how lenses tested on aps-c and FF as shown in DPR's own lens tests exhibit better performance on the larger sensors due, I presume, to the larger pixel size interacting with the lens resolving power (if you see what I mean).

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: I have a feeling, Samyang is not an outlier and the other manufacturers will follow the suit.
Sony fe-mount is going to dominate the market, they only need a cheaper FF model for masses under $1000. Affordable body and lenses will quickly capture the market. Canon and Nikon are risking to become third party lens manufacturers.
The crop sensor cameras are also going the way of Dodo, so developing new APS-C lenses makes little sense. It makes sense for Sigma, Tamron, Tokina to switch their efforts to fe-mount before the field becomes too crowded,

"You are comparing apples and oranges. These lenses are not equivalent. An equivalent FF lens is 600mm f/8, and nobody manufactures such lens because there would be little interest. "

I really do wonder why people continue to make such pedantic and completely irrelevant points as the one above.

One is a 600mm lens and one a 300mm. We get that.

The depth of field will be different, we get that as well.

They are both F4 lenses as well and no member of the equivalence police will change that. It is a physical attribute of each lens.

When it comes to the practical application of these lenses on their native bodies, FF and M 4/3 they give the same field of view and will give you the same exposure setting for a given aperture.

That is all that matters.

If you think anyone toting the much smaller and lighter Olympus lens around is, as they frame a shot, thinking "Oh dear, even though I have it set at F4 it's really anf F8" you are sadly mistaken.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 09:17 UTC
Total: 380, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »