Brand New

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 26, 2004

Comments

Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cosmin_NFS: I'm a little dissapointed about the IQ of the R5. For it's price it should have been stellar and it's not ! I recently bought a A7R III and two of the Tamron 2.8 lenses and the IQ comming from them beats the R5 and 24-104 F4(it's about par with the 28-70 F2, who is triple the price of the Tamron) , even if the Canon R5 costs double(at least in my contry) ! I think it has to do with the AA filter, who signifigantly reduces the resolution, why do manufacturers even produce sensors with that AA crap ?

Of course, but especially on DPR, there's a group of very dedicated Sony fans/trolls who continually spout misinformation about competing brands, with no first-hand experience, and it's tiring. I don't think I've commented on Sony boards or on Sony articles before...do Canon and Nikon users go on those and troll in the same way? You'd think if these Sony fans were so ecstatic about their cameras, they'd be using them instead of telling everyone how superior they are and how inferior other brands are, every chance they get. My favorite outright lie was that Canon RF glass was 3 TIMES as expensive as their Sony FE counterparts(!). In actuality, most Canon RF lenses are 5% or less more expensive.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2020 at 03:36 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

bionet: Surpring that the R5's AutoISO is "exactly what we like to see on a modern camera". I think it's very limited, not even taking stabilization into account.

What *I* would like to see is a system with adjustable priorities. "Open aperture up to f/4 if required, then lower shutter speed to 1/200 if required, then raise gain (ISO)." Preferably, this would be scriptable in even more detail.
THAT would be a modern AutoISO function, not this simple one.

It does have adjustable priorities. If you want to use a certain aperture, use aperture priority and Auto ISO, set the minimum shutter speed to auto and it will keep it above minimum hand-holdable shutter speed for the focal length. If you want to use a certain shutter speed, set it to shutter priority and Auto ISO. If you want to set both, go into manual, with Auto ISO. If I'm reading your comment correctly, why would you want your camera to determine both aperture and shutter speed for you? What scenario would you use that for?

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2020 at 18:03 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Opie3: GFX 100 mops the floor with these RAW files though... no contest. So if you're going to spend this much on a new camera and system, you might consider saving a bit more.

So if you're going spend $3900 on a new camera, you might consider saving more to buy a $10,000 camera? Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. With $10,000, I got the R5 plus most of the lenses I need.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2020 at 15:36 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cosmin_NFS: I'm a little dissapointed about the IQ of the R5. For it's price it should have been stellar and it's not ! I recently bought a A7R III and two of the Tamron 2.8 lenses and the IQ comming from them beats the R5 and 24-104 F4(it's about par with the 28-70 F2, who is triple the price of the Tamron) , even if the Canon R5 costs double(at least in my contry) ! I think it has to do with the AA filter, who signifigantly reduces the resolution, why do manufacturers even produce sensors with that AA crap ?

Sorry, I meant A7R III. If only there was a way to compare output from the R5 and the A7R III and see how inferior the R5 is, with it's "crap" AA filter....oh wait:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr5&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=canon_eosr5&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.43829357887184067&y=0.9276887286916863

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2020 at 14:59 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cosmin_NFS: I'm a little dissapointed about the IQ of the R5. For it's price it should have been stellar and it's not ! I recently bought a A7R III and two of the Tamron 2.8 lenses and the IQ comming from them beats the R5 and 24-104 F4(it's about par with the 28-70 F2, who is triple the price of the Tamron) , even if the Canon R5 costs double(at least in my contry) ! I think it has to do with the AA filter, who signifigantly reduces the resolution, why do manufacturers even produce sensors with that AA crap ?

So a Sony user comes into a Canon product discussion, pretending to have used the R5, claiming the IQ is inferior to the A7R II because of it's "AA crap" filter, then admonishes "Canon fanboys and the ferocity they defend their overpriced producs". Did I get that straight? Strange, because I don't go into Sony forums and on Sony article threads, talking absolute nonsense about Sony products I've never used, then act all surprised if they defend a product they actually own and use.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2020 at 14:36 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cosmin_NFS: I'm a little dissapointed about the IQ of the R5. For it's price it should have been stellar and it's not ! I recently bought a A7R III and two of the Tamron 2.8 lenses and the IQ comming from them beats the R5 and 24-104 F4(it's about par with the 28-70 F2, who is triple the price of the Tamron) , even if the Canon R5 costs double(at least in my contry) ! I think it has to do with the AA filter, who signifigantly reduces the resolution, why do manufacturers even produce sensors with that AA crap ?

@armandino
I've never owned Sony, so I can't comment on those, but I had the D850 previous to the R5. I'm an extreme pixel peeper, and actually prefer the R5's "AA crap" output over the D850. And I had comparable lenses for both systems (the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 FL ED and the RF 70-200 2.8). That's how I know this guy cannot possibly have any experience with the R5. The whole "AA filter makes everything soft" argument is such an outdated, ridiculous notion.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2020 at 23:57 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 review (2961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cosmin_NFS: I'm a little dissapointed about the IQ of the R5. For it's price it should have been stellar and it's not ! I recently bought a A7R III and two of the Tamron 2.8 lenses and the IQ comming from them beats the R5 and 24-104 F4(it's about par with the 28-70 F2, who is triple the price of the Tamron) , even if the Canon R5 costs double(at least in my contry) ! I think it has to do with the AA filter, who signifigantly reduces the resolution, why do manufacturers even produce sensors with that AA crap ?

I don't believe for one second that you've actually tried the R5 firsthand, and especially not with RF glass. That AA filter comment reeks of someone who hasn't actually looked at the R5 output.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2020 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Ooops. I guess the overheating cutoff is timer based.

"The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected"

@Handsome...okay, now tell me about page 4...or don't because I'll tell you...17 out of 20. Making valid points about varied photo topics is a lot different than bashing a company for no reason. Saying "And they are busted" because you have no idea how and why a company engineered a camera like they did isn't making a valid point. Who would seriously believe Canon would cripple the R5 to not hurt C sales over believing you can't make a small, weather-sealed fanless body that shoots HQ video forever? How many minutes of 8K/HQ video would it need to shoot for people to believe Canon didn't cripple it? If it's that simple to engineer and subsequently cripple, where's Sony's compact, weather-sealed fanless body that shoots 45MP and 8K for over 30 minutes?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Ooops. I guess the overheating cutoff is timer based.

"The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected"

And there you go. Did you ever stop to think people don't have issues holding a hot camera because...wait for it....camera companies limit their cameras from ever getting hot enough?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Ooops. I guess the overheating cutoff is timer based.

"The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected"

Dude, you talk about and bash the R5 constantly. You have no interest in buying the camera, because you are so happy with your Sony. That's what I'm talking about:
https://imgur.com/a/ovYL56l

Then you say patently false things, like "Canon’s challenges aren’t related to any concern you will burn your hand." (https://www.dpreview.com/news/0049437921/canon-releases-major-firmware-update-for-its-eos-r6-minor-update-for-the-eos-r5?comment=9611627404). Compared to what Canon has said: "Holding a very warm object for an extended period has the potential to result in what is known as low temperature burns."

Of course, you will call BS on this because you refuse to believe anything Canon says, even though, again, you have no interest in the system. Don't get all giddy because other Sony fans blindly like your comments.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Ooops. I guess the overheating cutoff is timer based.

"The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected"

And a quick check of your comment history determined that was a lie. Seriously, it's mostly all bashing other companies' products and defending Sony products. Just because people can figure out workarounds for extending R5 recording times doesn't mean Canon "cripple hammered" it. It means the person is just pushing their camera to the brink of how it should be operated. Just because there's no easy way for heat to escape the body doesn't mean Canon "cripple hammered" it or doesn't know how to mitigate heat. It means they balanced it more towards weather sealing for photography use. Talk about your own cameras instead of continually spreading faux outrage over a product you have zero interest in ever buying. Or maybe you should start your own company and show the manufacturers how to build a compact, fanless, highly-weather-sealed camera that shoots 45MP photos and more than 20 minutes of 8K.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Ooops. I guess the overheating cutoff is timer based.

"The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected"

"And they are busted" says MikeRan, who obviously is a camera engineer...oh wait, you're not...you're just a Sony troll who spends 90% of your time talking about the R5.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2020 at 03:55 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Ooops. I guess the overheating cutoff is timer based.

"The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected"

Canon already stated that the warning is based on something like 3 temperature sensors and also a timer. It's mentioned in one of the popular reviewers' YouTube videos...I can't remember which one.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2020 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

philmar: what a joke many dpr commenters are. They cry and whinge because Canon prevents them from frying their camera. They are angry they can't shoot 8k for extended periods even though 99% of them have no need to do so..... or even the computer power to even handle it.

Because most of the commenters are Sony fans only pretending to be interested in the camera. A lot of them try saying they had pre-orders for the R5, but if you go into their post history, every Sony-related comment is pro-Sony, every Canon-related comment is negative, and their equipment list is full of Sony gear. So they were going to pick up the R5 and then buy a bunch of RF glass when they already are well stocked with the latest Sony gear and happy with it based on all their comments? Yeah right. Although I'm sure there are some frustrated Canon shooters, most of the noise is faux outrage from Sony fans who have no interest in switching to Canon. They should just stick to shooting 8K on their Sonys and maybe they'd be a happier bunch. Oh wait, they can't.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2020 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: You doubters are feeling pretty silly now, aren't you.

Yup, DPR is overrun with Sony fans (you can tell by how many people "Like" inaccurate and false anti-Sony-competitor comments). In the R6 article discussion, Sony fans were saying mind-blowing things like Sony FE glass is 1/3 the price of RF glass (completely wrong -- they are very similar), that RF glass is "huge" (I guess they haven't seen the RF 70-200 2.8) and that the A7 III has a better shutter life than the R6 (false again, the R6 is rated 100,000 higher). Of course, those pro-Sony/anti-Canon comments got a ton of likes, and when their points were disputed, the posters vanished.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2020 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Funny Valentine: a list of deal breakers:
- 20 megapixel (not enough on a FF sensor)
- plastic outer body
- not enough button personalisation
But still, canon still offers that top quality product feeling that Sony, Panasonic and Nikon don't.

Well, as I owned the 5D4 for about 3 years, I'd disagree. Mine has taken a drink in the Atlantic Ocean, hit the solid ground from 4-5 feet high, was exposed to spray from a waterfall and moderate rain, and all times, came out perfectly fine. I also had the original 7D, and didn't notice any significant difference between how they felt or how they were sealed.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2020 at 20:32 UTC
In reply to:

Funny Valentine: a list of deal breakers:
- 20 megapixel (not enough on a FF sensor)
- plastic outer body
- not enough button personalisation
But still, canon still offers that top quality product feeling that Sony, Panasonic and Nikon don't.

@Kharan "Panasonic cameras are second to none in build quality - most Canons seem like plastic toys in comparison..." -- know how I know you've never used semi-pro/pro level Canon gear before?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2020 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

Orim_70: To late, to little, to much cripple hammer.

Cons:
o) way to expensiv - $1800,- would be more realistic
o) 20 MPix don't cut it anymore in 2020/2021
o) inclusion of an anti-aliasing filter (20 MPix and they include even a AA filter to cut off the few details the camera is able to capture)
o) electronic shutter mode drops the sensor down to 12-bit readout
o) 1/200s X-Sync with mechanical shutter
o) poor battery life
o) size
o) no shutter life rating
o) RF lenses way to big and expensive

Pros:
o) good rear screen (1.62M-dot)
o) 12 fps with mech shutter (20fps if the battery has enough juice)
o) Dual SD cards (different slots are useless for me)

Not even talking for video usage - it's the concept of an old DSLR in a modern package ... old wine in fresh bottles :-D THX but no thx :-D

@Orim_70 Do you Sony guys just like to make stuff up to always make Sony seem superior to other brands?

"better shutter life" -- nope. 200,000 for the A7 III compared to 300,000 for the R6

"But most important: the A7 III give you the access to the FE lens mount market with brilliant glas - but for 1/3 of the price compared to RF" -- huh?
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens - $2100
Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens - $2200
Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM Lens - $2100
Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens - $2200
...and so on. 4.5% cheaper is 1/3 of the price? That's some funny math.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2020 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

Orim_70: To late, to little, to much cripple hammer.

Cons:
o) way to expensiv - $1800,- would be more realistic
o) 20 MPix don't cut it anymore in 2020/2021
o) inclusion of an anti-aliasing filter (20 MPix and they include even a AA filter to cut off the few details the camera is able to capture)
o) electronic shutter mode drops the sensor down to 12-bit readout
o) 1/200s X-Sync with mechanical shutter
o) poor battery life
o) size
o) no shutter life rating
o) RF lenses way to big and expensive

Pros:
o) good rear screen (1.62M-dot)
o) 12 fps with mech shutter (20fps if the battery has enough juice)
o) Dual SD cards (different slots are useless for me)

Not even talking for video usage - it's the concept of an old DSLR in a modern package ... old wine in fresh bottles :-D THX but no thx :-D

So the A7SIII can shoot "nice photos" at 12MP, but the R6 can't shoot nice photos at 20MP? Got it. It's funny, because my lowly 10.1MP 1D3 shot a photo in 2009 that's now printed out as a 20 foot tall photo in the real world. But continue to tell us how inadequate 20MP is...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2020 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

medon78: "The modified Boeing 757 landed without incident at Joint"

747 I guess

Not so much shorter hops...the VC-25 flies ADW-PHL and other short routes all the time. It's just that Trump prefers flying into Morristown and MMU can't accommodate the VC-25.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2020 at 19:02 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »