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: 158, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 It made it possible to produce color cameras in mass quantity and I guess the idea itself is kind of genius but it's outdated as hell.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 (496 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 (496 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
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (496 comments in total)

This is a wonderful article and I'd love for dpreview to carry more similar content. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 17:43 UTC as 102nd comment
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Probably how bees and flies see the world. I wonder how it handles moire. I'll hold off getting one until the 20 megastraw version become available.

Probably not how bees and flies see the world — just as human vision gives you a three-dimensional working model instead of two overlapping images with blind spots in the middle.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 13:50 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

Yeah, I'm with you. There's a funny tendency for false precision in photography these days. No one worried about f/11 instead of f/11.3137085, and we shouldn't worry about saying ISO 25k instead of 25600.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 13:49 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

In fact, on the web site, it says that the straws are 254mm long and 2mm in diameter. This is where "f127" comes from.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 19:55 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elite83: Where's the camera? All I see is a big DIY honeycomb... there's no film nor sensor?

You are seeing the whole thing. The "film" is color photographic paper. It goes right behind the honeycomb.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: It's unbelievable good! To create the middle image from the one on the left is incredible. We will soon be seeing sensors with far fewer pixels. We don't need raw data, we need sophisticated processing.

That depends if you want to take a picture of what's there, or have a picture created which contains content in the same general visual category as the subject. If I take a photograph of my baby, I'd like the result to be an image of my baby. I don't want an image of a theoretical baby constructed from an archetype.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)

> Eventually we might even be able to extract high-resolution images from low-quality security-cam footage a la CSI.

This is an incredibly dangerous line of thinking. These images are not reconstructed — they are _imagined_. It's even clear in these examples: look at the eyelines in the "ground truth" images vs. those in the "upsampled" ones. The constructed images clearly show the subjects looking in a direction they were not. They are, as apparently we say these days, alternative fact images.

The technique might be good for filling in backgrounds or for artistic purposes, but as photographers and technologists we have a responsibility to make it clear that they bear no relation to reality.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 22:45 UTC as 58th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Limbsjones: lol there's such a fine line between art and cheese...and these photos certainly cross into the fromage category. The compositions are horrible...what a waste. A Phase One can't just make a good photo, obviously. The family with the baby in the front looks almost like they were just photoshopped in... This is some deviantart steampunk nonsense...the symbolism is so obvious and cliché...

For what it's worth, I bet the do look better as large prints than on the web.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

WT21: I stopped with "crowd funding" big projects a while ago. Never got any return from any of them

Yeah, big projects seem riskier than small ones. I've contributed to a lot of local art projects with great results, as well as board and card games and little DIY geek hack gadgets. Big ambitious electronics seem dangerous.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: The W100 is just a rewarmed S33, and quite frankly, I can't understand why Nikon needs an annual update of a camera oriented towards small children? Maybe there's a big annual update market among elementary school children in Japan?

The other camera looks like something from the middle of the last decade. A CCD sensor? Really?

Both produces look irrelevant in 2017. It's time for Nikon to retire the "Coolpix" brand. The point and shoot market is now extinct.

> The point and shoot market is now extinct.

Yeah, companies should get with the program and stop selling products that make them money on the market. Can't they see what we all know? They look so foolish compared to us wise Internet commentators!

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

madecov: The incorrect font and logo mis spelling is by design. It avoids any trademark infringment. I own a retail store where we sold a lot of Authentic items and sometimes "clones" . Every one of the clones had the same parameters a change in fonts or mis spelling of the trademark.
Before everyone gets up in arms, this is a standard industry situation and the items where sold as clones not authentic. These were electronic cigarette atomizers. We sold the clone at about $20.00 while the authentics were over $100.00
Cloning has pretty much gone away in the industry. But I firmly believe the markings are altered intentionally to bypass trademark legal issues.

This does not, in fact, ACTUALLY avoid trademark infringement.

You're probably right that's the intention, but that's not how the law works. It's a clear attempt to confuse consumers into thinking they are getting the legitimate brand either way, and that's what counts.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2016 at 16:33 UTC
On article Handy tool helps you say no to work for 'exposure' (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

HRC2016: I don't see an issue with doing work for exposure when you are starting out.
When I was starting out I sought out opportunities to work and make contacts. Yes, it did lead to paying gig and a great career. Were the people I worked for likely to hire someone for pay? Probably not.

Here's McDonald's giving away free burgers in exchange for exposure: https://slickdeals.net/f/8031331-mcdonalds-free-sandwich-no-purchase-necessary-registration-required-android-ios-ymmv

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Just swallow the SD card lol

This is not a good idea -- among other reasons, it won't work. See this story: http://kotaku.com/5912943/if-you-swallow-an-sd-card-with-illicit-photos-the-cops-will-know

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

Nikita66: ah come on, $210 for 72mm? I just bought a Nikon prime lens for less. I'm pretty sure the lens is a bit more complex than this filter.

Maybe. It's hard to make a filter this dark without significant color cast.

And, I'm sure Nikon is a larger company with significantly greater volume.

And, they have other incentives to price certain lenses cheaply.

Mostly, "cost to make it" is not a big factor in pricing anything.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Are they just aping the appearance of the Canon, like the new Voigtlander 58 does the Nikon Ai ? Or does it actually rip off the optical design? I'm not a *huge* fan even of the former, but if it's the latter DPReview should not be promoting it (even if the patent is technically expired).

Lee, you say "even if the patent is technically expired" that DPReview should not "promote" this lens, with a strong implication of moral or ethical lapse.

But the entire point of the patent system is to encourage the publication of innovative designs for others to use! Were this a copy, that would be exactly system working as designed. Since the Canon lens in question here was released in 1991, surely any patents related to it are not merely "technically" expired but _actually_ expired.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 00:21 UTC
In reply to:

M W B G: Lets hate it. It is not of a brand we own so I hate it.

And it's way too expensive for a thing I wasn't going to ever buy anyway, so anyone who does buy it is clearly not as smart as me.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 21:49 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2204 comments in total)

"Instead of the previous behavior, where you could hold down any of the Fn buttons to bring up the customization menu, on the X-T2 you instead hold down the 'Disp/Back' button to gain quick access to the button customization screen."

Oh thank goodness. I took me forever to stop from accidentally bringing up that screen.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 19:39 UTC as 149th comment
Total: 158, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »