Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Works as a Open Source / Linux Doer-of-Things
Has a website at http://mattdm.org/
Joined on Aug 25, 2006
About me:

1996-1999: Casio QV10A
1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 950
2004-2007: Olympus C-5060
2006-2006: Fujifilm F20
2007-2010: Fujifilm F31fd
2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR
2012-2015: Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)
2015- : Fujifilm X-T10 (+ 23mm and 56mm)
2016- : Fujifilm X-T2 (+ 23mm and 56mm, and added 35mm WR)
Now you know. :)

Comments

Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Pentax K-1 Mark II: What you need to know (460 comments in total)

A humble plea: *please* stop the nonsense of excess precision in ISO numbers. Saying "ISO 819,200" instead of ISO 820k is ridiculous. The difference is 0.01% of a stop!

In fact, it'd be better to go 3200, 6400, 12k, 25k, 50k, 100k, 200k, 400k, 800k. The difference between 800k and 812,200 is still only about 0.3%. This is completely washed out by the dozens of other sources of imprecision in photography — and even if it weren't, is completely imperceptible.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 18:38 UTC as 16th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

bhfar: Good luck with training this device with 17K images only! OK, you can do that, but then precision will be something close to 50% at best, I guess, so something close to taking pictures at random! And doing it in real time is still a separate issue. Do we need a device with all those bells and whistles to take a random photo? Abuse of limited knowledge of the public using the trendy AI term.

Came here to read some comments from people completely missing the point. Was not disapoointed!

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

Distagon18: I liked Lensbaby better when they were selling the ‘original’ for not very much money. Success has led to higher prices and made the products less fun, I think.

There's still the Spark ($90), which is very much in the spirit of the original ... but unfortunately only for Canon and Nikon.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: I used to worry a lot more about trash and not try to get disposable anything and compost what I could but then I learned more about landfills. Yes, there are worries about toxic things (mostly from batteries and other electronics) getting into your water supply but for the most part, a landfill is better thought of as stinky landscaping. Plus in today's modern world we capture the stink and burn it for electricity so even that's greatly reduced.

If you want to fill in a few square miles with plastic and cotton qtips, I really don't think the earth is worse off. You pack em down and build a beautiful golf course on top of them. Plastics are, for the most part inert. I'd rather they were underground than in the ocean, no doubt, but I don't think the earth has much to worry about too many plastic shopping bags accumulating over the eons. Similarly, throwing out compostable material may make the landfill a little stinkier and take a few more years to settle but won't do any real harm.

You may want to reconsider. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 13:23 UTC
On article Ricoh launches Pentax K-1 Limited Silver Edition (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

iudex: Dear Ricoh,

we, Pentax users, really appreciate this new fancy colour. You know this is exactly what we need: more colours. Maybe red or pink would be fine too. And don´t worry with bringing those announced modern FF lenses (DFA 50mm/1,4, DFA 85mm/1,4) , those film era lenses are fine and perfect for 36 MPx sensor.
Don´t even bother with developing new APSC flagship, the K-3 II announced in April 2015 is still great, who needs an upgrade? We also dont need any more APSC lenses, so the DA wide zoom can stay in the roadmap for another 3 years.
Thank you for all you do and that you give no reason to listen to those bad rumours that Pentax is sinking.
Your happy customer.

I don't know if they'll offer a K-1 in pink, but they've certainly offered DSLRs in that color before if you really want one. I think the first ones were a decade ago ­— I don't remember the details, but I sure do remember plenty of hand-wringing about priorities and doom and etc., and yet, here we still are a decade later.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 16:39 UTC
On article Ricoh launches Pentax K-1 Limited Silver Edition (175 comments in total)

For those commenters just turning in to Pentax, note that Pentax has been offering different-colored bodies for _years_, and it's been fairly successful for them.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 16:37 UTC as 43rd comment
In reply to:

eyeport: Nice effort in creating authentic shots and I think we should all learn from this attitude towards photography. However, it's the wrong genre to do this... btw, poor choice of focal length and angle. Since so much effort has gone into this, why not do it properly?

Of the photograph. It's easy to sit at a keyboard and type "wrong artistic choices" ­— and not really worth taking seriously. Show me something better.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

eyeport: Nice effort in creating authentic shots and I think we should all learn from this attitude towards photography. However, it's the wrong genre to do this... btw, poor choice of focal length and angle. Since so much effort has gone into this, why not do it properly?

Looking forward to seeing your version.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 13:33 UTC
On article The rise and fall of selfie-drone manufacturer Lily (20 comments in total)

I know it's easy to say this in retrospect, but I thought at the time that this had all the hallmarks of being too good to be true. I'm not surprised at all to hear this — I'm just surprised it got so far.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 19:47 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Christop82: It took researchers from a college and a giant in imaging tech to create this? I'm pretty sure I can do this is photoshop. Only faster.

You can't. Skip to 4:00 in the video.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

User3787089555: Its Xenon flash, not hernia flash...

That doesn't really tell me anything... is there some sort of intersection of meaning which might confuse machine translation?

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

User3787089555: Its Xenon flash, not hernia flash...

Can anyone who speaks Chinese explain why this particular confusion might have happened? I found it for several other Xenon flashes on Alibaba.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 18:07 UTC

Oh good, finally a hernia flash...

Wait, what?

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 15:19 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
On article This $31 lens will turn any room into a camera obscura (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: "We used to do this many years ago with Huck Finn... We would drill a hole on the paling fence, put Grandpa's magnifying glass on the hole, and watch the Babe Ruth play upside down while we lay down on the grass inside a huge cardboard container..." - Thomas Sawyer.

.

This obviously isn't Mark Twain... what are you quoting, here?

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
On article Ask the staff: wedding season weirdness (277 comments in total)
In reply to:

surelythisnameisfree: How are you supposed to pronounce ISO?

@Deliverator How are you measuring "most people"?

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2017 at 15:38 UTC
On article Ask the staff: wedding season weirdness (277 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: The truly amazing thing is that so much money and effort is devoted to weddings today, when half the couples end up divorced within a few years.

I wonder how many very expensive wedding albums end up in trash bins? I've actually seen custom made wedding accessories selling at thrift shops for pennies. Things like toasting glasses engraved "Amber and Jason Forever, June 19, 2011." Sometimes "forever" means just a few years.

However, it is the job of a wedding photographer to do exactly what the client wants done. And many times, the client isn't the bride and groom, but the bride's mother, who pays for all of it.

FWIW, the "half of all marriages end in divorce" statistic was never true. And, the divorce rate has been falling in the US and is at a long-time low.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2017 at 15:34 UTC
On article Embracing the Lensbaby Velvet 85's glow (54 comments in total)

This is fine and all, but where are the real-world photographs of brick walls, rulers, and action figures that happen to be at your desk? Is this going to be any good for framed 60×40" prints of extinction resolution charts? In short, how does this lens do for the important stuff REAL photographers care about?

I remember when reviewers used to be all about that stuff, not this amateur flowers and pictures-of-your kid fluff! DPReview has really gone downhill.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 14:16 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

samfan: Foveon ftw.

I really don't understand what's all the excitement about bayer filtering. Sure it was a nice idea but it should've been replaced with something like Foveon ages ago. It hasn't only because it's the cheapest and simplest hardware solution.

Software solutions are cheap, so all those inherent problems such as low color resolution, aliasing and all that can be done outside of the sensor.

No, bayer filtering is not good. You appreciate it only if you've not seen anything better. Foveon provides better resolution and no aliasing. Native b&w sensors such as in Leica M mono blow bayer out of the water with monochromatic resolution and sensitivity.

Let's call it what it is. Bayer filtering is nothing but a compromise between affordability and acceptable quality. It made it possible to produce color cameras in mass quantity and I guess the idea itself is kind of genius but it's outdated as hell.

(And yes I know Foveon has its own problems. I still prefer that kind of solution.)

If only someone (maybe dpreview) would write an article explaining why this comment is not correct.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 22:47 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: "I estimated subject distance at a little over 6 feet (one an a bit me's) and shot waist-level on the 35mm Summilux at F5.6 to give a small margin for focus error. "
Small margin? The DoF is 3 feet at 6 feet. Hard to miss... (I may have done that with a rangefinder at some point, but not often...)

I misread your claim as DoF of 6 feet at focus distance of 3 feet, which would be a lot more extraordinary. Still, basic point still stands — for better or worse, many people aren't satisfied with the 8×10"-at-arm's-length-average-vision standard. Learning to relax about that is one of the interesting points of the article in any case.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: "I estimated subject distance at a little over 6 feet (one an a bit me's) and shot waist-level on the 35mm Summilux at F5.6 to give a small margin for focus error. "
Small margin? The DoF is 3 feet at 6 feet. Hard to miss... (I may have done that with a rangefinder at some point, but not often...)

That's highly-dependent on what you consider acceptable sharpness. If you're aiming for 8×10" prints viewed at arm's length — a 0.2mm circle of confusion in the print — that works out to about 8" of acceptable depth. That's a lot less than 6'! If you're willing to accept a lot more fuzziness, sure, you have more margin. On the other hand, if you're really pixel peeping and all other conditions are ideal, it's, like, one inch.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »