PhotoKhan

Lives in Portugal Cascais, Portugal
Works as a Airline pilot
Joined on Mar 22, 2003
About me:

A good photograph shows what you saw.
A superior ones conveys what you felt.

Comments

Total: 1204, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
In reply to:

User9362470513: "Removing the Bayer color filter array removes the slight blurring effect of demosaicing while also allowing around 1EV of extra light to reach the sensor."

Or you could use a Foveon sensor ;o)

Yes, for black and white (...and only for black and white...) that would be appropriate.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 11:58 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I can't believe how everyone is so focused on liking or disliking the bokeh that they're actually failing to see how this lens comes quite short on sheer image quality in what regards to what than can be expected from a 100 f/2.8 prime, nowadays.

(Disclaimer: This is an opinion. Please do not handle as heresy.)

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 10:05 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I can't believe how everyone is so focused on liking or disliking the bokeh that they're actually failing to see how this lens comes quite short on sheer image quality in what regards to what than can be expected from a 100 f/2.8 prime, nowadays.

The lens handling of contrast and microcontrast makes all images look like there's a very thin film of milk over each and every one, irrespectively of type and direction of light source.

Generally speaking, this lens seems to perform just as good, if not worse, than Nikon's AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR, a lens that came to the market more than 10 years ago.

From seeing random samples from these Flickr groups (...random output from regular and multiple users is always one of the tools I use to evaluate the actual performance of any particular lens...) I think I know which lens I would NOT be buying:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax100mm/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3302096@N21/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/makro-planar100mm/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/canon100mm/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/105micro/pool/

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 09:47 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)

I can't believe how everyone is so focused on liking or disliking the bokeh that they're actually failing to see how this lens comes quite short on sheer image quality in what regards to what than can be expected from a 100 f/2.8 prime, nowadays.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 22:55 UTC as 32nd comment | 10 replies
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

stefdnk1: I have been wondering why of all these Professional reviewers at the Sony event not a single of them brought a grey card?
And why did Sony not invite any sports shooters in.
I admit I haven' read and seen all the reviews 😌

(cont.)

In any case, take note of what Rishi wrote above. It is not just a question of WB (...and that would already be huge for those professionals, as most of them, can't afford the "luxury" of shooting in RAW for later processing...).

There are also color hue shifts that required localized (...by areas or colors...) post-processing since general adjustments will only balance things in a specif part of the spectrum while throwing things off in another area.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 09:24 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

stefdnk1: I have been wondering why of all these Professional reviewers at the Sony event not a single of them brought a grey card?
And why did Sony not invite any sports shooters in.
I admit I haven' read and seen all the reviews 😌

Yes, those 3 guys are quite representative.

In fact, if you attend any sports event early enough, you can see hordes of PJs roaming in the middle of the field, pulling their cards out to calibrate the white balance over there...because, you know it IS over there, not on the side lines, the light temperature should be evaluated, right?.

Why are you resisting the notion that the vast majority of Canon and Nikon sports shooters, being practical working professionals as they are, just select AWB or a specific color temperature setting from in their gear from the get go and start firing away?

Is it because you don't have the slightest idea how pretty work-accurate the AWBs are in these 2 brands?

(cont.)

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 09:22 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

stefdnk1: I have been wondering why of all these Professional reviewers at the Sony event not a single of them brought a grey card?
And why did Sony not invite any sports shooters in.
I admit I haven' read and seen all the reviews 😌

Yes, there is.
Auto WB that actually works.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 22:06 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

stefdnk1: I have been wondering why of all these Professional reviewers at the Sony event not a single of them brought a grey card?
And why did Sony not invite any sports shooters in.
I admit I haven' read and seen all the reviews 😌

rfslll,
Do you see any gray cards and Color Checkers at major sports events?
If this camera is touted to be a new competitor in that specific arena, why would DPR testers bring along those items for this event?

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 21:40 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)

The indoor series tells me that the WB was inaccurate.
If it was the result of the particular light conditions on location (that might have included a mix of light temperatures) or the traditional funky way Sony treats color, only further series might help elucidating.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 10:22 UTC as 88th comment
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: "For low light photographers like me, the Mark III was a better camera in all respects."/.../"its AF system was bafflingly complicated compared to the Mark II, and turned out to be plagued with unpredictable accuracy issues when tracking moving subjects in daylight".

Finally, 10 years later, a DPReview editor dares to put it in writing.

Better late then never, they say...but, for me, the continued silence over the matter during the commercial life of that camera, compounded by the absence of a review has struck a blow in the site's credibility that only now am I beginning to recover from.

(Cont.)

99% of the time the interests of the brands are coincident with those of the readers but when that disjunctive 1% pops-in editors of a reference site must instinctively know with whom their fiduciary responsibility lies with.

For a specialized information site that is, precisely, one of the main diferentiators between "superior" and just "good".

On a less preachy note, may I ask what do you guys have in store in terms of those wonderful "hands-on, real life" tests for the Sony A9?

It surely deserves a good set-up and, after the boat building bit and the Martha Stewart moment, I fear you, personally, might be tempted to go along the next attempt at breaking the record for largest skydiving formation :)

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: "For low light photographers like me, the Mark III was a better camera in all respects."/.../"its AF system was bafflingly complicated compared to the Mark II, and turned out to be plagued with unpredictable accuracy issues when tracking moving subjects in daylight".

Finally, 10 years later, a DPReview editor dares to put it in writing.

Better late then never, they say...but, for me, the continued silence over the matter during the commercial life of that camera, compounded by the absence of a review has struck a blow in the site's credibility that only now am I beginning to recover from.

Thank you, Barney, for this in-depth perspective of what was going on at the time. Much appreciated.

Sometimes, we tend to give unlimited capabilities to what we like (...at least I do and I do like DPR...a lot...) and, obviously, no matter how grounded, professional and efective outfits might be, they do still have their limitations.

I see now that Phil and the gang were probably overwhelmed trying to keep things as good as they always were and that probably played a part.

One thing I would take out of this, though, is that editors, who are always buried in "gotta finish and publish this"/"gotta start that"/"this just in" should still keep alert to when the "white noise" in the industry goes above a certain (good or bad) level about a particular product.

(Cont.)

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 08:57 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: "For low light photographers like me, the Mark III was a better camera in all respects."/.../"its AF system was bafflingly complicated compared to the Mark II, and turned out to be plagued with unpredictable accuracy issues when tracking moving subjects in daylight".

Finally, 10 years later, a DPReview editor dares to put it in writing.

Better late then never, they say...but, for me, the continued silence over the matter during the commercial life of that camera, compounded by the absence of a review has struck a blow in the site's credibility that only now am I beginning to recover from.

As I wrote, it wasn't the lack of a review "per se". It was it's absence combined with the complete silence about the design flaw - an extremly serious one for the target type of photography it was marketed for - a flaw that you now so candidly mentioned.

The problem hit me hard, with 3 trips to Canon Service before they were forced to replace the offending unit and I resented the fact that my photography site of election didn't address the issue while others were all over it.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 20:31 UTC

"For low light photographers like me, the Mark III was a better camera in all respects."/.../"its AF system was bafflingly complicated compared to the Mark II, and turned out to be plagued with unpredictable accuracy issues when tracking moving subjects in daylight".

Finally, 10 years later, a DPReview editor dares to put it in writing.

Better late then never, they say...but, for me, the continued silence over the matter during the commercial life of that camera, compounded by the absence of a review has struck a blow in the site's credibility that only now am I beginning to recover from.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 10:51 UTC as 109th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The interesting thing here is the rig, itself, because the footage - al least the one in the Driftwood 360 video - is not very compelling.

Ah, thank you dtibi...A treat, that way, yes. :)
I was wondering what all the commotion about it was...

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The interesting thing here is the rig, itself, because the footage - al least the one in the Driftwood 360 video - is not very compelling.

I've seen it in 2160s.
The problem is not the resolution. I don't question it would look good in 12K.
The thing is that the 243º coverage doesn't aesthetically translate into something engaging, something conceptually different.
Not only are the framings poor, visually-wise, but the overall experience is similar to what we get from seeing a rectilinear fisheye shot, except for the "what the heck is that?" in what comes to stitching artifacts.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 08:55 UTC

The interesting thing here is the rig, itself, because the footage - al least the one in the Driftwood 360 video - is not very compelling.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 08:40 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The more my fellow Canon users (...and Nikon ones...) cry "outrageous" about the coverage on this camera, the more interested I am in reading these articles.

...oh!...and anyone who, irrespectively of agreeing or disagreeing, doesn't appreciate the technical competence and sheer interest of Rishi's relentless knowledgeable input is simply a fool...

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 11:00 UTC

The more my fellow Canon users (...and Nikon ones...) cry "outrageous" about the coverage on this camera, the more interested I am in reading these articles.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 10:56 UTC as 115th comment | 2 replies

In fewer words and much less commotion, another DB has been found.
If we "stopped the press" every time it happens, in this day and age, not much else would be done.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 08:34 UTC as 56th comment

The level of insecurity (...given away by the need to comment on this somewhat irrelevant piece of news...) and wishful thinking (...given away by the complete ignorance of market shares...) by Sony users is simply a-m-a-z-i-n-g.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 11:46 UTC as 5th comment
Total: 1204, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »