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: 169, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 (70 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 (273 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 (273 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 (487 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 (487 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 (487 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 104th 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 (149 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
Total: 169, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »