GoremanX

Lives in United States Georgia, VT, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Dec 6, 2012

Comments

Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

The alterations in these photos are random and meaningless. They don't serve to enhance the photos in any way. Seriously, who purposely bends a sail post on a boat? Or adds random trash bins to the background? Also, some of those photos are downright painful to look at. This is a terrible test, it's really no different than your typical "Where are the differences?" images in children's magazines, except there's only one photo to look at.

I got 8/10. That's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 23:27 UTC as 112th comment | 2 replies
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)

Pentax LX... a little more pricey, but infinitely reliable. Especially after the rubber mirror bumpers are replaced with modern Teflon ones. Most of the shutter speeds function completely mechanically, and the rest operate with a simple battery that's readily available. All kinds of accessories were made for it, the viewfinder was swappable on a whim... the list of awesomeness goes on and on.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 01:51 UTC as 102nd comment
In reply to:

GoremanX: I'm confused... is this digital or Instax? If the image is captured by a sensor, then how is it transferred to the film? The Instax cameras I have are entirely optical and analog, the image from the lens is projected directly onto the film which then gets spit out the top of the camera. What they're describing here doesn't sound like the same thing at all...

Sounds like it basically projects a digital capture onto the analog film as the photo is spit out... yuck. Not interested.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 23:34 UTC

I'm confused... is this digital or Instax? If the image is captured by a sensor, then how is it transferred to the film? The Instax cameras I have are entirely optical and analog, the image from the lens is projected directly onto the film which then gets spit out the top of the camera. What they're describing here doesn't sound like the same thing at all...

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:20 UTC as 10th comment | 6 replies
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

noirdesir: That Four-Thirds model gonna be a huge hit. Or rather the opposite.

Putting a wide-angle FF lens in front of a 4/3 sensor is already wasteful enough, releasing something for a mount which saw its last and final camera release almost six years just takes the crown in pointlessness.

The lens exists, it's been developed and it works. It requires no special AF functionality. How much do you think it costs Samyang to stick a slightly different mount on it and cater to everyone? I think it's actually a very smart move.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 00:27 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

FantasticMrFox said:
"God, guys, let it go. I haven't tried the K-1, but the AF.C behaviour DPR describes in their test reflects my experiences with the K3 100%, so I tend to believe them."

YES! Absolutely agree. Nowhere in my comment do I ever pretend otherwise. But the Autofocus section blasts EVERY ASPECT of the K-1's AF, not just AF-C. And it does so with great levels of incompetence. If I read this review before making a purchasing decision and had poor vision that prevents me from focusing manually, I'd be terrified to go anywhere near a K-1.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 18:11 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

Well you're still not addressing _any_ of the points I've made, so clearly you're hung up on something.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 18:07 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

One more issue: the selected AF points are ALWAYS VISIBLE in the viewfinder of my K-1. They're not "illuminated", but they're very clearly displayed. That entire part of the Autofocus section is blatantly wrong. Did you even have the LCD overlay enabled while reviewing the camera? It's on by default! I can't imagine anyone turning it off on purpose during a review.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 18:05 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

You need to let go of this... we know AF-C is lacking on Pentax compared to its peers, and this totally deserves to be reflected in the final score. But your assessment of the entirety of the AF performance is way off the mark, and much of the "Autofocus" section of the review is a joke. See all my points above.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

(continued from above)
That's a complete fabrication, and gives readers an entirely false impression. Makes me wonder what horrific lenses the reviewer used for testing AF speed and accuracy. I've got screw-drive lenses that bang into focus so fast and accurately on the K-1, it makes you wonder if the camera got it wrong somehow. Yet I find myself always pleasantly surprised.

The new LCD overlay on the viewfinder alone counts as a massive upgrade over the old LED display from previous models. Now I can confirm ALL the parts of the image that are in focus instead of just the single focus point I had selected. But is there any mention of that in this review? Of course not. The entire AF assessment is half-baked and biased. It's obvious the reviewer has zero familiarity with Pentax cameras other than being forced to review them once in a while.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

There's more to AF than subject tracking. What I'm saying is that AF-S performance on the K-1 is top notch (although acquisition speed depends on the lens used, just like with any camera system), while subject tracking in AF-C is disappointing. Just look at these contradictory statements:

page 6 - Autofocus
"Unfortunately, the improvements really don't seem to make that great of a difference in terms of performance as the K-1's autofocus system behaves in much the same manner as the K3 II"

page 10 - Conclusion
"While the AF system of the K-1 can't keep up with some of its peers, it is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs"

Together these statements make no sense. And then add to that this ridiculous statement:
"Even in the most basic, single point AF shooting modes, the results are far from what we would expect from a modern DSLR focusing system. The autofocus tends to hesitate, even in AF-S mode with the center point - it’s nowhere near as fast as most Canon and Nikon DSLRs."

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:37 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)

I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 16:20 UTC as 194th comment | 18 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: Maybe it's just because I've been using Pentax DSLRs for a decade, but I don't have nearly as much trouble with the K-1's AF as the reviewer seems to. I won't pretend that the AF performance is anywhere near on par with equivalent Canon and Nikon cameras, but it's been a very nice upgrade over the K-3 (which itself was a nice upgrade over the K-5). My keeper rate is close too 100%, even for fast action sports like beach volleyball or tennis. Even better, my keeper rate for daily photos of my hyperactive 2.5 year old daughter is way up. I've been very impressed.

But again, I'm VERY familiar with the Pentax AF system and have learned how to overcome its weaknesses to get the most out of it. Also, AF performance is very lens-dependent. I've got lenses that bang into perfect focus almost instantly, while others need to whir a bit to get there. All my lenses are screw-driven, and the screw-drive motor on the K-1 has been surprisingly good so far compared to my K-3.

Oh I'm not pretending the AF on the K-1 is stellar in any way. I fully admit it's lagging way behind what's being offered by Canon and Nikon, and I'd be the first the celebrate if Pentax ever caught up in this regard. All I'm saying is it's not nearly as bad as the reviewer implies. The way he puts it, anyone using the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot. And the reviewer also makes NO mention of lens-dependence on AF speed.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

caver3d: Is this some kind of a joke? Silver Award? I believe the K-3 got a Gold. What's up with DPR, anyway? This is one superb camera. And for the bevy of great features versus price, how can you beat it? (And, yes, I also own the Sony A7RII along with the K-1, etc., so I have some idea of what a state-of-the-art camera can do.) All cameras have pros and cons, but the K-1 really shines. But, don't worry Canikonphiles, you'll be sure to get your Gold awards. Just amazing.

I have the K-1 too, and I tend to agree with the reviewer's score (if not his poorly-worded opinions of the AF). While the AF on the K-1 is plenty fast and accurate for my needs and much better than the reviewer implies, it still pales in comparison to what's available from Nikon and Canon. And since AF is such an important part of modern photographers' needs, that deficiency must be reflected in the final score.

Pentax needs to be more competitive in this area.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Why would anyone jump from Canon or Nikon to a system with no FF lenses besides pure anda simple fanboyism?

Yep, plenty of modern FF lenses available for anyone who wants to get into this system. I've got a full complement for my K-1. Not to mention all the old F and FA lenses that are available for dirt cheap just about anywhere. There's countless numbers of them.

I love it when the closed-minded fanboys accuse Pentaxians of being fanboys.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 18:29 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: Maybe it's just because I've been using Pentax DSLRs for a decade, but I don't have nearly as much trouble with the K-1's AF as the reviewer seems to. I won't pretend that the AF performance is anywhere near on par with equivalent Canon and Nikon cameras, but it's been a very nice upgrade over the K-3 (which itself was a nice upgrade over the K-5). My keeper rate is close too 100%, even for fast action sports like beach volleyball or tennis. Even better, my keeper rate for daily photos of my hyperactive 2.5 year old daughter is way up. I've been very impressed.

But again, I'm VERY familiar with the Pentax AF system and have learned how to overcome its weaknesses to get the most out of it. Also, AF performance is very lens-dependent. I've got lenses that bang into perfect focus almost instantly, while others need to whir a bit to get there. All my lenses are screw-driven, and the screw-drive motor on the K-1 has been surprisingly good so far compared to my K-3.

Timbukto: actually my fastest-focusing lens on the K-1 is the Sigma DG 100-300mm F4, which has near-instantaneous AF in any situation with phase-detect (we won't go into contrast-detect here... Sigma lenses mostly fail at that on Pentax). Close second-fastest would be the Pentax F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 macro, which also bangs into focus at lightning fast speed and is always spot-on. Conversely, my slowest focusing lenses with phase-detect are the Pentax FA 43mm and 77mm Limited, which need a lot more whirring.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 00:12 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Why would anyone jump from Canon or Nikon to a system with no FF lenses besides pure anda simple fanboyism?

Who said anything about jumping from Canon or Nikon? How about long-time Pentax users with thousands and thousands of $$$ in Pentax glass? Or how about first-time DSLR buyers looking for a great value?

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 21:47 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)

Maybe it's just because I've been using Pentax DSLRs for a decade, but I don't have nearly as much trouble with the K-1's AF as the reviewer seems to. I won't pretend that the AF performance is anywhere near on par with equivalent Canon and Nikon cameras, but it's been a very nice upgrade over the K-3 (which itself was a nice upgrade over the K-5). My keeper rate is close too 100%, even for fast action sports like beach volleyball or tennis. Even better, my keeper rate for daily photos of my hyperactive 2.5 year old daughter is way up. I've been very impressed.

But again, I'm VERY familiar with the Pentax AF system and have learned how to overcome its weaknesses to get the most out of it. Also, AF performance is very lens-dependent. I've got lenses that bang into perfect focus almost instantly, while others need to whir a bit to get there. All my lenses are screw-driven, and the screw-drive motor on the K-1 has been surprisingly good so far compared to my K-3.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 21:44 UTC as 380th comment | 8 replies
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

maccam: Is it f2.8 equivalent or is it f2.8 equivalent to f4.2 with the 1.5 corp factor? I wish these things would be stated plainly.

Aperture primarily determines light gathering ability and is unaffected by sensor size. F2.8 is F2.8, regardless of whether it's on a medium format or a phone camera. There's no such thing as "sensor-equivalence" in this regard. The effect of aperture on depth of field is a secondary byproduct which IS affected by sensor size, but is only relevant for its aesthetic qualities on resulting photos. When we refer to a "fast lens", we're talking about a wide-aperture lens. Nobody calls it a "razor-thin depth-of-field lens" or a "mostly-bokeh lens".

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2016 at 20:09 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)

Anyone hoping this phone will ever exist in the US outside of AT&T is living in a dream. It's never happened before, and it never will. And the track record for software updates on all the previous Sx Active phones has been dreadful. I'm not just talking new Android versions, I'm talking basic bug fixing. These phones are abysmal as far as software quality goes. Just wait until September (pick any year) when all your S7/S7Edge-toting friends have up-to-date devices with a mostly bug-free experience, and you're still lugging that crash-prone piece-of-crap S7 Active.

AT&T ruins every good phone, but they especially ruin the Sx Active line. It's an embarrassment.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 20:53 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »