jdc562

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 18, 2010

Comments

Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D850 Review (2112 comments in total)

Regarding autofocus, this is not much of a test--easy-peasy for just about any run-of-the-mill camera. It's not too hi-tech to distinguish a close subject from a distant background. A better, and more relevant, set of tests would have more high-contrast and well lit elements nearer the subject.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:52 UTC as 204th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mojave: I'm looking at the 5 photos in this article and the skin pores in the 2nd shot are outstanding, especially for an online photo on my phone. The original at lifesize must be amazing. I see nothing to complain about anywhere.

Pore choice of details to characterize the sharpness of all 5 images. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

vivaldibow: Am I the only one who feels couple of photos are out of focus, and the high ISO performance is no better than D750?

Esign: You're making false assumptions. Clearly you have never tried a camera that shoots at high fps. I shoot up to 12 fps without problems and without getting the blurry results shown in this thread for the D850. Choosing the area of the frame for focussing is mostly done before the action starts. See my small bird shots in my gallery for some examples. (This is all the birds in the gallery except for the owls and cranes.) They were all shot with a 42 mp camera at high fps in natural light, no flash. Keeping the highlighted focus points on the birds' heads in the high-speed shooting is not difficult: just move the camera [frame] to keep the highlighted points where they should be. The flying hummingbird shots were done while the hummingbirds were zipping around. Most of the other birds were bobbing around. Check the bills on the birds: all are tack sharp. None is blurred. Here's another difference: I'm just an amateur; DPreview touts the D850 photographer as a pro.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 05:13 UTC
In reply to:

vivaldibow: Am I the only one who feels couple of photos are out of focus, and the high ISO performance is no better than D750?

Esign: regarding focus, are you joking? All modern DSLRs at the level of the D850 allow you to choose ahead of time which part of the frame you want to use for focussing. The photographer was not forced to relinquish control to all 153 focus points. On top of that, the viewfinder displays the points of focus at the time of focus; so a competent photographer knows what part of the frame should be in focus. I very much doubt that the Nikon D850 lacks these features. This leaves us in this quandary: did some part of the D850/lens screw up, or did the "pro" photographer? We do know that the photographer is partly at fault for allowing these low quality images to represent the D850 in the first place.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

iAPX: The fisher is ISO 1250, with ugly noise reduction, incredibly bad resolution (58mm Nikkor could not resolve for this sensor, as it is already the case for the 36MP D800/D810). Technically it just demonstrates that this sensor is totally prone to noise at 1250 ISO and many, so many lenses could not resolve enough for it.

This is also the case for 24MP APS-C (so funny!), and even 20MP APS-C or 36MP Full Frame is way over any zoom real resolution, you could not exploit them to their fullest except with some rare perfect prime lenses, in a limited aperture range.

I think 16MP and 32MP are the limits in terms of real-world resolution, with pro-level zooms (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8), for APS-C and Full Frame, and D850 marketing material demonstrates it very well.

I would die for a "downgraded" D850 with the 20MP D5 sensor and it'S incredible dynamic range and high ISO. ;)

PS: I am looking to go into 20MP D500, not for th 20MP, but for everything else that makes it a Pro camera!

Your claim regarding 16 and 32 mp limits to "real-world resolution" are fallacious thinking, and contradicted by professional tests of high mp cameras. Just look at the variety of resolution tests on the DPreview site. As most have posted here, the images under discussion are just plain poor compared with similar cameras.

These "high res" images alone disprove your high mp explanation for lack of sharpness. There is a lack of sharpness in some images, but not all: Image #2 is sharp, but images 1 and 5 are definitely not. Since the camera was the same for all, this inconsistency in sharpness further contradicts your explanation of high mp count producing the instances of lack of sharpness.

We are left without an explanation for the poor image quality. Did the D850 work poorly under these shooting conditions? Was the the fault of the photographer? Or, maybe a combo?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: How can anyone complain about these shots. Let us see you do any better. Nuff said

Not enough said at all. Thousands of photographers do better every day. For examples of much higher quality images from many photographers using many kinds of cameras, go to a website like http://fredmiranda.com/
Be objective: the consensus in this thread shows you are way outnumbered in your appraisal of these shots: plenty of posts have specified the defects in these images. The quality of these images are way below expectations for a Nikon camera at this price point and claimed specs.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 21:28 UTC

At first the Nikon D850 seemed to be a break-through camera, but Hancock's "D850 high res samples" do little to make the camera an attractive proposition. How sharp are the "high res" images produced by the camera when images 1,3 and 5 show prominent over-sharpening halos? Images 1,4, and 5 show lots of noise in the background. Images 1, 4, and 5 lack sharpness in key areas of the images. All of the images show limited dynamic range. This is way below the IQ performance I was expecting.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 01:42 UTC as 74th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jdc562: For outdoor photography: wear a button-front or zip-front shirt or jacket in a dark color. When unbuttoned or unzipped, you can pull the back of the garment over the top of your head and top of the camera to easier view the LED screen on the back of the camera. This is like the cloth used by old-time view camera photographers.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I meant LCD. Some cameras allow you to switch between the viewfinder and the live view LCD screen. When I'm composing some kinds of landscapes, I find the screen useful. A number of photographers have been using other live view devices the same way.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 05:13 UTC

Especially for hiking wildlife photographers: For carrying a heavy, tripod-mounted, camera set-up, use an inexpensive, neoprene/velcro sports "back wrap" wound around the top of the tripod as padding. (About $18.) On the top of the tripod it looks like a short skirt . It is stretchy enough to allow you to quickly fold-in and open-wide the tripod legs while leaving the legs extended. With the tripod legs folded-in, the neoprene padding allows you to rest the top of the tripod comfortably on your shoulder while you carry the gear like a hod-carrier--hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to photo...

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 22:16 UTC as 15th comment

For outdoor photography: wear a button-front or zip-front shirt or jacket in a dark color. When unbuttoned or unzipped, you can pull the back of the garment over the top of your head and top of the camera to easier view the LED screen on the back of the camera. This is like the cloth used by old-time view camera photographers.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 21:50 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies

For outdoor photographers: To keep your camera on the ready as you drive around,, put it on a cheap, non-skid, silicone rubber bath mat on your car seat. This will reduce the chance of your gear sliding off the seat when braking, turning, etc. Use a style of mat with spikey nubs: besides increasing friction, the nubs will keep your gear slightly elevated above dust settling on the mat.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

jdc562: For 15 years I have owned Dell laptops and desktops, which I used for photo editing. During this time Dell reliability has declined. Their technical service response is the worst. Similarly, Windows is full of bugs, which it charges to fix--not to mention the vulnerability to viruses, hacks, etc. Dell and Microsoft problems have cost me days of lost time and aggravation. When Consumers Reports published their users' survey of computer reliability, the data for Apple's reliability and service was far superior to all Windows machines, especially Dell's. So, I switched to Apple and have been very satisfied with their hardware and service. I did pay more, but the savings in terms of lost time, repeated aggravation, and cost of repairs has made the higher price worth it.

To HowaboutRAW: First, you say updating Windows would have prevented ransomware attacks that exploit flaws in Windows.

Then, you contradict yourself by saying the way to avoid the problems with Windows is to kill auto-updates. There are no a priori criteria for separating problem-causing auto-updates from non-problem manual updates.

You falsely assume I didn't run System Restore, etc. In addition, I ran Microsoft's Windows validation procedures. All reported the procedures were successful. Nonetheless, the error messages repeated.

Your assertion about "more much more powerful replacements for System Restore" emphasizes the dysfunctionality of Windows and the hassles it causes users.

A much lower PERCENTAGE of Apple users report such problems.

Your denying problems with Windows is consistent with Microsoft itself: the company has no provision for the public to report flaws in in Microsoft products. This arrogant, closed, system assures persistent problems. QED

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 02:03 UTC
In reply to:

jdc562: For 15 years I have owned Dell laptops and desktops, which I used for photo editing. During this time Dell reliability has declined. Their technical service response is the worst. Similarly, Windows is full of bugs, which it charges to fix--not to mention the vulnerability to viruses, hacks, etc. Dell and Microsoft problems have cost me days of lost time and aggravation. When Consumers Reports published their users' survey of computer reliability, the data for Apple's reliability and service was far superior to all Windows machines, especially Dell's. So, I switched to Apple and have been very satisfied with their hardware and service. I did pay more, but the savings in terms of lost time, repeated aggravation, and cost of repairs has made the higher price worth it.

For those who doubt the vulnerability of Windows, where have you been??? I kept my Windows machines loaded with anti-virus, anti-malware programs and never clicked on any messages from unknown sources. My Windows computers never became infected; however, many others were not so lucky. Did you not read all the reports on the recent two giant ransomware attacks?? The attacks exploited specific vulnerability flaws in the Windows operating system. Moreover, look at all the complaints from Windows users whose Windows systems malfunctioned after Windows did automatic updates. That did happen to me. To fix the problem that they themselves caused, Microsoft wanted a credit card $99 minimum down payment to start, with more charges to add. Whether the malicious attacks exploiting Windows are technically "viruses," or not, they are prevalent and serious. To claim such attacks don't occur anymore and Windows is a sound operating system is ignoring all the reports to the contrary.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 23:57 UTC

For 15 years I have owned Dell laptops and desktops, which I used for photo editing. During this time Dell reliability has declined. Their technical service response is the worst. Similarly, Windows is full of bugs, which it charges to fix--not to mention the vulnerability to viruses, hacks, etc. Dell and Microsoft problems have cost me days of lost time and aggravation. When Consumers Reports published their users' survey of computer reliability, the data for Apple's reliability and service was far superior to all Windows machines, especially Dell's. So, I switched to Apple and have been very satisfied with their hardware and service. I did pay more, but the savings in terms of lost time, repeated aggravation, and cost of repairs has made the higher price worth it.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:35 UTC as 314th comment | 12 replies
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stacey_K: One more reason to not use a "protective" filter. I'm sure all that torque on the lens didn't hurt anything.

Thanks for the correction. When he showed the filter with the shattered glass, I missed that it was the earlier filter--when they tried this the first time. On the second time, there were no visible cracks in the filter glass, although they did hear some crunchy sound as they unscrewed the second filter. But, in any case, the second filter was intact enough to block putting a piece of cardboard over the front element before doing the work.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01 UTC
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stacey_K: One more reason to not use a "protective" filter. I'm sure all that torque on the lens didn't hurt anything.

Yeah, but the steel ruler could jammed sharp pieces of broker filter glass against the front element of the lens. Also, a sharp shard of glass could have dislodged during the bandsaw cutting and jammed between the moving saw blade and the front element. I thought he was pretty cavalier with the hand file. I'm with Marty4560: protect the front lens element before doing the other work.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:24 UTC
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ron Poelman: Adam's "oval" comment is worth underlining;.
anything that puts pressure on the rim distorts it,
especially with big diameter, thin rim filters,
(like that weird filter wrench).

Before you drag out the tool box, put it on a window sill.

At night the cold should squirm the interference some
and the next day as the Sun cranks up,
the mating surfaces should expand at different rates.
A rubber band around it and a decent grip on the barrel
and touch wood, all of mine have come off easily.
The trick is to rotate, not squeeze.

Post removal inspection and clean-up is worth some thought, too.

Just pressing the filter ring against a thin sheet of ice (e.g., made in a dish put in a freezer) for a few seconds would be better: the filter ring would get much colder than the lens mount. So, the ring would shrink more, loosen, and then twist off with a filter wrench, jar opener, etc. Also, why not avoid the "oval" problem by using something that goes all the way around, like a pipe clamp?

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: If only Sony would just produce a zoom that has decent bokeh.

Every time I see a nasty bokeh image, there's pretty much only one vendor responsible these days. They almost make my eyes water.

Re: "The Name is Bond" and statements regarding your link:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/09/05/testing-the-uber-hot-sony-70-200-f2-8-g-master-and-a7rii-by-steve-huff/

Mr. Bond, this is another misrepresentation in your series of posts. Contrary to your assertions, in this link Steve Huff concludes:
"In some cases, as with ANY lens, you may get busy bokeh. This background was all netting and trees behind the netting. This created a crazy busy bokeh, but in most situations the Bokeh from this lens is some of the best and smoothest I have seen. "

Mr. Bond, you are not understanding the articles you are citing; Huff contradicts what you are saying and clearly substantiates what SELEES posted.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 01:02 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: If only Sony would just produce a zoom that has decent bokeh.

Every time I see a nasty bokeh image, there's pretty much only one vendor responsible these days. They almost make my eyes water.

Re: "The 24-70 has poor bokeh. You can clearly see it here:
https://lightcentric.wordpress.com/tag/sony-a7r/"

Are we both talking about A-mount lenses?
I went through the text at your link and couldn't find the supporting information for "You can clearly see it here." Maybe we're talking about different lenses.
In the thread for the Sony a9, we're talking about a-mount lenses. And I was referring to my experience with the a-mount Sony Zeiss 2.8 24-70 lenses (both I and II). I have used both extensively on Sony a99 i and a99 ii at a range of focal lengths and apertures, always with good bokeh. Maybe you were talking about an f4 24-70 lens for the a7 mount?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: If only Sony would just produce a zoom that has decent bokeh.

Every time I see a nasty bokeh image, there's pretty much only one vendor responsible these days. They almost make my eyes water.

I get very nice bokeh on my 24-70 Sony Zeiss and my 74-400 i Sony G lenses. The Minolta legacy lenses were/are also known for their nice bokeh. To make your criticism credible, you need to specify the lenses that perform as badly as you allege.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »