HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 16563, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article 2017 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (734 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: brendon:

Right, because Leica bodies are about the same price as the pro Canikon bodies, this has been true for years and years.

Didn't say that one would use a D5 for the same purposes.

And counting lenses is immaterial. The Leicas are optically better than Canikon's offerings, by a good margin. So if you care about light and colour more than AF tracking, you use Leica, or Zeiss lenses.

Azathothh:

The $750 Zeiss manual focus 50mm f/1.4 is blurry in the centre when shot wider than f/4.0. It does have very good colour wide open.

Many lenses have much better colour when stopped down.

"The Zeiss Otus and Milvus are the opposite, very high resolution but it gives you flat pictures. The detail is there but it's like having a layer of fog between the camera and the subject."

Not true, I suggest you try them.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:53 UTC
On article Join us on Facebook Live to talk about the Sony a9 (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonny1976: what i have always thought...this is a big giant advertisement company...that's why they bashed pentax k1 till day 1....clearly scared some big names....miss the old great dpreview based in uk...this is another useless amazon product

jonny:

The A9 is an exciting new camera. At one time the Pentax K1 also qualified as such.

The D810 hardly looks like a toy in comparison to the K1.

The D810 has much better AF than the K1.

(Not sure what the D800 has to do with much, it's no longer being sold new by Nikon.)

Regards Pentax pixel shift samples, you need to download the raws/DNGs and extract yourself with that kind of thing.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:50 UTC
On article Join us on Facebook Live to talk about the Sony a9 (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonny1976: what i have always thought...this is a big giant advertisement company...that's why they bashed pentax k1 till day 1....clearly scared some big names....miss the old great dpreview based in uk...this is another useless amazon product

jonny:

How did DPR bash the Pentax K1?

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:29 UTC
On article Join us on Facebook Live to talk about the Sony a9 (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

PNad: I think you meant may 24?

Tan68:

Given that this post regarding a future DPR-Facebook event went up on DPR during the afternoon (Seattle time) of May 23:

In what time zone would be May 23rd at the same time it be 9:30AM May 24th in Seattle?

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:10 UTC
On article Join us on Facebook Live to talk about the Sony a9 (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Not sure I want to inform Facebook of my interest in digital camera gear.
Actually very sure.

WesPerry:

Consider this: Not the browsers on my computer, and many computers I use.

Consider this: I barely every use Facebook.

So no, FBook is not able to collect information on me.

It's similar to how almost all of the Amazon tracking cookies are blocked when I sign into DPR.

Please look into things like Adguard, Adblock, Ghostery, BluHel, NoScript, etc. And then learn about techniques of varying one's IP address, and clearing browser caches.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:00 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (734 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: brendon:

Right, because Leica bodies are about the same price as the pro Canikon bodies, this has been true for years and years.

Didn't say that one would use a D5 for the same purposes.

And counting lenses is immaterial. The Leicas are optically better than Canikon's offerings, by a good margin. So if you care about light and colour more than AF tracking, you use Leica, or Zeiss lenses.

Azathothh:

You mean the blurry when wide open f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm? Nice colour that lens. Can't mount it on an M body and use the rangefinder focusing system.

No, the good Zeiss 50mm costs more than 1/10 the price of that Leica. To come close to that 50mm f/2.0 APO Leica M being used on a Leica M or SL body, you'll need the 55mm f/1.4 Otus, which mounts on Canikon bodies. And even that's not as good.

(True there's a 1500usd Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 that's optically excellent. But 15 is not ten percent of 80. But it's less than that $4500 Otus.)

Anyhow, I didn't limit the discussion to price. And nowhere did pretend that there aren't other makers of optically excellent lenses--Zeiss is certainly one.

No, the Zeiss M lenses don't come close to this particular Leica M either.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 12:08 UTC
On article Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM sample gallery (63 comments in total)

Did you shoot any uncompressed raws worth sharing?

Nice to see the A9 out in the field.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 11:53 UTC as 13th comment
On article Join us on Facebook Live to talk about the Sony a9 (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Not sure I want to inform Facebook of my interest in digital camera gear.
Actually very sure.

WesPerry:

I'm sure FBook has no knowledge of my digital camera gear posts.

Dr Blackjack:

The "so surrender to the way" lines are tiresome to read. And inaccurate; hope you were being ironical.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 11:40 UTC
On article Join us on Facebook Live to talk about the Sony a9 (76 comments in total)

Not sure I want to inform Facebook of my interest in digital camera gear.
Actually very sure.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 01:49 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
On article 2017 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (734 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: brendon:

Right, because Leica bodies are about the same price as the pro Canikon bodies, this has been true for years and years.

Didn't say that one would use a D5 for the same purposes.

And counting lenses is immaterial. The Leicas are optically better than Canikon's offerings, by a good margin. So if you care about light and colour more than AF tracking, you use Leica, or Zeiss lenses.

Azathothh:

"Leica glass is overrated. The just live on the hype created by Bresson."

It's simplistic to think it's only Breton 60 years go.

No, Leica glass is not over-rated.

Now, if you'd said "some Leica lenses are over-rated" you'd read a bit more like you know of what you right.

For example the newish M 90mm f/2.0 (about 4000usd) is very good, but not amazing--therefore yes in a way it is over-rated.

However the 50mm f/2.0 APO is....

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:07 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (22 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

BadS:

"hence the rubbish about requiring the speed of light to achieve earth orbit" not what I said exactly. Check again.

"Upside down only means something when the aircraft is designed to fly in a particular orientation. The Eurofighter is "stable" in any orientation."

Really? Do you know what "any" means? I think you mean something else. And you'll have to source this claim. Absent thrust vectoring, it is unlikely that the Eurofighter should be able to fly upside down, level, for a sustained period--that's if you accept aero-odynamic theory.

"The geometry of aircraft is designed to provide lift in a wide range of orientations."

Right, and this is a problem for 100 years of aerodynamic theory. At least you're no longer confusing description with explanation. That was really embarrassing to have to go over so many times.

"You need to understand that a force in one direction WILL produce motion in directions other than the direction of the force." Directions, plural?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: just wondering, have any other cameras had issues with "peeling" sensors?

GEONYC:

"Sony makes almost all of the rest". Not really, unless you mean sensors for smaller than APSC cameras.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: just wondering, have any other cameras had issues with "peeling" sensors?

RM:

" 'but they used hydrophilic glass' is neither an explanation nor an excuse."

It's an explanation contrary to your assertion. Now, what we don't know is if there was a non-hydrophilic option they could have chosen.

The curved microlens array is a first for full frame in this body, it was something Leica-Kodak had previously said impossible. Nothing to do with the corrosion.

"and it is these coating layers which are likely sensitive to water. There would be protective coating on top but if that coating gets scratched due users being over industrious with their sensor cleaning it's gonna "rot" after a while due to water in the atmosphere."

"So it wasn't QC or process related, it was just Leica not factoring in sensor cleaning into its wear calculations."

That's an interesting idea I'd not read before.

Never did think it a QC problem.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 11:00 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: I thought LEICA replaced once years ago for its bad KODAK sensor, but still use KODAK sensor as the replacement.

It was different (?) mode. LEICA is good for its users.

In other words, KODAK went under that is the best thing for users. We have one less poor quality company.

Kodak poor quality?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: just wondering, have any other cameras had issues with "peeling" sensors?

RM:

Curved micro lens array.

Not at all simply micro lenses.

Next time read and quote what I wrote before embarrassing yourself.

Kodak made these sensors.

It's the cover glass that is hydrophilic. Look up the adjective.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Old news. But it is the first time this issue is called "peeling" instead of "corrosion" though.

Bashir:

Corrosion generally leads to coatings, or tightly fitting covers, pealing off.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

beatboxa: Well, you get what you pay for!

Yeah, at ISO 1000 and below an amazing camera in many ways.

It has its limits and you have to know how to focus manually.

Nope, doesn't do many FPS.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Old news. But it is the first time this issue is called "peeling" instead of "corrosion" though.

The corrosion is an old known issue.

The replacement, for a hefty fee, with conditions, looks to be a reasonably new Leica policy. (It likely means they've found a source for new sensors.)

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: just wondering, have any other cameras had issues with "peeling" sensors?

Just wondering which other cameras are the first full framed mirrorless bodies ever done? Answer: Not one.

And, excluding other Leica bodies, just wondering which other full framed mirrorless bodies have a curved micro-lens array in the sensor plane? Answer again is none.

Look, hydrophilic issues with the cover glass are a known problem with this sensor, but for whatever reason, and it was likely very real, Leica/Kodak chose this cover glass.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:29 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (22 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

BadS:

It's okay you're not the first person to confuse description for explanation.

And your over-long posts haven't solved this confusion of yours.

"The thrust comes from the engine."

Right, we've gone over this. However, except for thrust vectoring, this doesn't provide a source of energy to keep an upside down plane flying for very long.

"The shape of the aircraft provides lift so that Fy > 9.8 m/s^2. [upside down] Flight is achieved."

This claim you've made is counter to basic aerodynamic theory and practice for the last 100 years or so.

No, quoting the acceleration of gravity, in meters, or feet, doesn't solve your issue.

Yes, you've made my point very well for me--that's repeatedly.

Your insults don't hide you misunderstandings of the issue.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
Total: 16563, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »