GoremanX

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

Comments

Total: 29, showing: 21 – 29
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Twong: For those who want the PS technology, you can get that at half the cost by getting the Pentax K-3II. Same technology but implemented on the APS-C platform. Great technology, great innovation, great company.

I haven't used the K-3ii, but my understanding is that it actuates the mechanical shutter between each shot. On my K-1, the shutter is electronic during PS capture. The mechanical shutter stays open the whole time. The entire process happens much quicker. Plus there's the added Motion Correction feature mentioned by others.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Sid911: The only fly in the soup - The Pentax K1 is mighty heavy - heavier than the D810 and the 5D Mark iii :-(

Honestly, my first thought when I took the K-1 out of its box was "where's the weight?". It doesn't feel heavy at all, certainly not noticeably more than my K-3 or K-5.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

gianstam: Dear DPR... Is it possible for you to do a handheld test of the pixelshift? Using the standard lab sceen?

Not a scientific test in any way, but I've taken some PS shots handheld in bright daylight (1/800 shutter, ISO 100, 43mm Limited @ F4.5) and the results were stunning. I did have Motion Correction enabled. No visible aberrations, and the colors are totally breathtaking. Very noticeable difference between PS on and off. The only real drawback is that the mirror is up and shutter open for an extended period of time (like 2 seconds), which makes it hard to know when the actual photos are being taken. The shutter is electronic in PS mode, so the mechanical shutter doesn't actuate between each shot.

edit: as long as the subject in the shot isn't a bunch of grass or trees with wind blowing. In that case, the grass and leaves tend to get all weird.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

dpthoughts: I see two odd things which I dislike.

no 1. it is meaningless to compare a 4-exposure mode like pixelshift to an 1-exposure mode like single-shot in the D810.
If you compare properly, you would do it against a series of four consecutive shots, which are merged in photoshop, with or without the help of an action to automate this.

Then, the alleged noise advantage of pixel shift would be what it is: void ;)

no 2. The K-1 steals its dynamic range advantage by means of cheating (doing denoising on raws). Evidence: the ratio between luminance noise and chroma noise appears to be shifted in favour for choma noise.
If the firmware doesn't do any denoising, then this ratio must always be constant (due to maths).

This is a plausible explanation, why the K-1 will do so well on reviews, w/o having received a new miracle sensor from Sony. Sony wouldn't give such to Ricoh, so that Ricoh's cams appeared as cheaper and better than Sonys own ;) that never happened, of course.

BAHAHA! Sore loser much? You're totally missing the point of pixel shift.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Wow, this will change how we see the world.

Not quite... in essence, this will restore the full view of full frame lenses on APS-C (and m4/3) cameras. I'd consider this more like a "Full frame converter". So this won't change how we see the world, it'll just bring it back to the way we see the world in 35mm format.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2013 at 14:19 UTC
On article Fujifilm introduces FinePix SL1000 50X superzoom (35 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Since when is an "aperture of F2.9-5.6 " considered "Fast"? If it was F2.0 all the way through that would be fast.

Look at the lens barrel, it's F2.9-6.5, not 5.6!!!

That makes the 1200mm end almost useless...

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 22:50 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: None of this explains why I can't just use some other cataloging software and use Lightroom solely for image processing. I find the Lightroom catalog features to be sorely lacking, my preferred catalog software does a much better job of organizing and retrieving my images (yes, even different versions of the same image). But every time I want to process a photo in Lightroom, I have to trudge through the tedious import process, even for ONE STUPID PICTURE.

This forced Adobe cataloging crap is merely a means to lock users into a purely-Adobe workflow. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's insulting.

@Tim OConnor,
Camera Raw does not do the same things Lightroom does. For example, none of the fancy 3rd party plugins work with Camera Raw.

Why should I force myself to use one software program when that one program doesn't do everything as well as the other software I paid for and learned to use already? Sometimes Lightroom is the best tool for working with an image. Sometimes AfterShot is. And sometimes I use something else entirely. In all cases, the Lightroom catalog is inferior and lacking features that I sorely need.

So thanks to the forced Lightroom catalog, I now have hundreds (thousands?) of tiny, useless Lightroom catalogs.

I can totally see the benefits of using a single software for most of my workflow. I can even see some benefits to using one company's software for all of my workflow. But that should be MY CHOICE!!! Adobe is trying to FORCE me to use their catalog software. There's no technical reason whatsoever why that should be necessary except to enforce a monopoly

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2012 at 16:54 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)

None of this explains why I can't just use some other cataloging software and use Lightroom solely for image processing. I find the Lightroom catalog features to be sorely lacking, my preferred catalog software does a much better job of organizing and retrieving my images (yes, even different versions of the same image). But every time I want to process a photo in Lightroom, I have to trudge through the tedious import process, even for ONE STUPID PICTURE.

This forced Adobe cataloging crap is merely a means to lock users into a purely-Adobe workflow. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's insulting.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2012 at 21:26 UTC as 82nd comment | 11 replies

erm... I can only imagine the glare such a filter would cause if the sun is even slightly in front of the camera (even if not in the frame)

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2012 at 03:39 UTC as 15th comment
Total: 29, showing: 21 – 29
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »