Melchiorum

Joined on Dec 9, 2015

Comments

Total: 613, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Nah, thanks. Not falling for it again.

I bought Luminar 3, and it was a semi-functional piece of broken garbage, that barely ever worked on my high-end editing workstation. It kept freezing, crashing, and failing to load the editing tools. The memory leaks alone made the entire workflow a chore, and they were far from being the only issue.

They never actually fixed it, and now they are selling Luminar 4? How about actually fixing your product and supporting it through quality of life updates, instead of slapping a new number on it and asking for more money?

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2019 at 20:17 UTC as 11th comment | 4 replies

Data breach is bad enough. Adobe keeping quiet about it and not informing its customers is infinitely worse. Shows how much they care about safety and trust of their user base.

I have been saying it for a long time: Adobe is a horrible company with dirty business practices. They are only afloat because of numerous companies and individuals already in their ecosystem. Yet, it's never too late to leave. I did. You should too.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2019 at 11:53 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply

Amazing! Why don't we also convert videos to "analogue" by recording a TV screen with a crappy video film camera? Because adding another layer or conversion (and also such a ridiculous one as recording a screen) will surely make your photos better.

Existing portable printers like Instax are just as "analogue". They also take the light coming off the pixels and expose the slide with it. Only they don't use a screen for that and thus don't require another set of crappy lens that will further ruin an image. They are also much more compact and easy to use.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 13:22 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (989 comments in total)
In reply to:

APenza: Dropped my first RX100 which fell off my lap onto a wood floor and the lcd just shows a mess of colored lines. Next I bought an RX100 3 next for the pop up viewfinder and soon after the warranty expired the buttons started engaging even with a light touch as my thumb brushed over them. $300. to repair. If you dropped it three times and it didn’t malfunction then I might be a buyer. Hate to pay $1200. For a camera that doesn’t hold up to a minor bump or drop.

It's almost as if highly sophisticated and precise pieces of optical engineering aren't buit to be repeatedly dropped by users who apprently have problems with this incredibly difficult task of holding stuff in their hands. Shocking, I know! If only there was a cheap solution to this problem... like some kind of strap, which could be attached to one's wirst or something... Surely, one may only dream of such miracles!

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2019 at 13:02 UTC

Google has some of the worst quality control I have ever experienced from a large company. Their software is amazing, bht their hardware... Pixels, and especially the 3rd one, have been absolutely plagued with issues, and it seems like they will continue to be.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2019 at 02:09 UTC as 13th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

AZBlue: "the issues were caused by the Chinese original design manufacturer (ODM) which designed the phone in line with RED's requirements and specifications" ... *ROTFL* RED farmed out the design of this phone? Are you kidding?? They didn't even design their own phone??? FAIL!!

Uh... where have you been past decade? They farm out pretty much all their designs. And some of their stuff is even built around much cheaper third-party stuff with "Made in USA" slapped all over it. For example, their overpriced SSD's are literally standard off-the-shelf consumer grade drives shoved into proprietary cases. The only thing they do is add a piece of DRM firmware to it, so that their cameras only write to those drives at full speed, while hamstringing "non-RED" ones, even though they are literally identical, just aren't sold with a 2000% mark-up.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2019 at 12:13 UTC

RED, when reselling consumer grade chinese SSD's at 20 times the price:
"This is our own stuff, we designed it, it's made in USA!"

Same RED, when dealing with backlash about their failed product:
"This is not our fault, we had nothing to do with it, it's all those Chinese!"

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2019 at 12:02 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article [UPDATE] Fujifilm GFX 100 added to studio test scene (301 comments in total)
In reply to:

Melchiorum: What most pixel-peepers in comments miss completely is the fact that 100MP allows one to downsample the final image and get absolutely incredibly low noise levels and perfect rendition of fine details. By downsampling to 24MP (which is plenty for most applications) you get very usable results from up to ISO 25600! And by "usable" I don't mean "you can see stuff through noise", I mean "they are good enough for prints". Which is absolutely incredible and can't be mached by ANYTHING on the market right now.

It is a camera that excels in everything. Nature/animal photography? No problem (incredible cropability has you covered). Portraits? Sure! Landscapes? Yes please! Architecture? Oh god yes! Product photography? Second to none! Low-light? Un-freaking-matched!

People don't get it. This camera has all the potential to be the single camera for everything. The one camera to rule them all. And people still somehow find ways to complain and be "disappointed" by it.

@pentaust, In a comment that you were responding to I gave you one of the HUGE advantages of having 100MP and several minor ones. Did you read the comment or did you just see the phrase "pixel-peepers" and immediately went to typing a response? It's quite frustrating to see people fail to comprehend the obvious even when the obvious is directly explained to them.

Let me state the obvious: there is no camera on the market AT ANY PRICE right now, capable of providing cleaner image with crisper detail at above ISO 400. There are TWO cameras that are capable of doing that below ISO 400, and they cost MULTIPLE TIMES more. There is also no camera able to produce perfectly good results at up to ISO 25600 if you are willing to downsample to 24MP. Nothing even comes close. So when I see phrases like "expensive luxury" being applied here I don't know if I should laugh or facepalm.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2019 at 08:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): I am only moved to say than it looks absolutely Fugly.

Whereas the Hasselblad X1D is beautiful.

>The eye of the beholder thing is a tired old banal cliché.
Doesn't make it any less true.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2019 at 08:24 UTC
On article [UPDATE] Fujifilm GFX 100 added to studio test scene (301 comments in total)

What most pixel-peepers in comments miss completely is the fact that 100MP allows one to downsample the final image and get absolutely incredibly low noise levels and perfect rendition of fine details. By downsampling to 24MP (which is plenty for most applications) you get very usable results from up to ISO 25600! And by "usable" I don't mean "you can see stuff through noise", I mean "they are good enough for prints". Which is absolutely incredible and can't be mached by ANYTHING on the market right now.

It is a camera that excels in everything. Nature/animal photography? No problem (incredible cropability has you covered). Portraits? Sure! Landscapes? Yes please! Architecture? Oh god yes! Product photography? Second to none! Low-light? Un-freaking-matched!

People don't get it. This camera has all the potential to be the single camera for everything. The one camera to rule them all. And people still somehow find ways to complain and be "disappointed" by it.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2019 at 08:15 UTC as 63rd comment | 5 replies
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): I am only moved to say than it looks absolutely Fugly.

Whereas the Hasselblad X1D is beautiful.

>As if I actually didn't know that.
Never said that, no need in getting so defensive. All I did was disagreeing with your statement and provided my view. That's how discussions work. Relax, not everyone on the internet is out to get you.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 12:11 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm GFX 100 first look (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

Duncan M: As from the video:

- Vertical grip slippery and uncomfortable to hold,
- No d-pad,
- Ergonomically a step back from Fujifilm designs.
- No CFexpress or XQD
(Which Chris and Jordan seem to prefer for a professional camera and with good reasons btw due to better security of safeguarding your files).
- No pixelshift
- Bulky camera
- Flimsy micro hdmi connection for video,
- Slow moving lens elements and therefore still slow AF acquisition,
- A smallish MF sensor,
- 5fps is only 14-bit not 16-bit
- 10.000 dollars

I would rate it nothing more than a bronze star.

>No d-pad
Good. There's a joystick for that. Less redundant controls, more simplicity.

>Ergonomically a step back from Fujifilm designs.
Firstly, ergonomics are individual. Secondly, this camera has no competition with better ergonomics.

>No CFexpress or XQD
Perfect. SD cards are good enough, constantly getting even better and are reasonably priced.

>Bulky camera
Compared to what?

>Slow moving lens elements and therefore still slow AF acquisition
Compared to what?

>A smallish MF sensor
Compared to what?

>5fps is only 14-bit not 16-bit
Is there a faster camera on the market?

>10.000 dollars
Your point being? Is there a cheaper 100 MP medium format with PDAF and IBIS on the market? Is there one for twice as much? Three times? What was your point again?

What a nonsense comment from a clueless couch-photographer.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 09:35 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): I am only moved to say than it looks absolutely Fugly.

Whereas the Hasselblad X1D is beautiful.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I find it really beautiful in its practical, rugged, sturdy form. It looks like a trustworthy tool that I wouldn't be afraid to get dirty. X1D on the other hand looks like a designer gadget meant for clean studio environments.

Different kinds of beauty. Definitely far from "Fugly".

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 09:17 UTC
On article One month with the Huawei P30 Pro (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: Compact cameras have this quality for years and for a fraction of the price. But wait, you can't upload selfies and food shots immediately. Oh my...

Firstly, no, compact cameras didn't "have this quality for years". They still don't. Small-sensor compact cameras were and are extremely limited in dynamic range and perform very poorly in low light - not even close to modern smartphones.

Secondly, compact cameras are still cameras - separate devices that you need to carry and maintain. One of the core reasons why mobile photography got so ubiquitous is convenience of always having a camera with you when you need it.

Thirdly, yes, you can't upload "selfies or food shots" immediately. You know what else you can't upload immediately? Literally anything. And if you think that's a small or insignificant point then you need to leave your basement and get in touch with the real world where connectivity is important.

Honestly I don't get this elitist and irrational hate of smartphone photography. I can only explain it by "photographers" feeling threatened and insecure by the changing (actually, changed) world.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 12:37 UTC
On article LIT is a wireless xenon flash for your smartphone (57 comments in total)

I kind of fail to see the point of having a separate flash for my phone, especially when they want over 300 bucks for one. Why not design a flash trigger (like a transmitter/receiver kit) for the phone instead so one can use any standard speedlight with it?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2019 at 13:28 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: It's so funny that cellphones are not advertised anymore as... cellphones... Now you spend more than 1000 euros every year or less in a new "camera" and complain that real cameras are expensive. So weird..... or plain stupid...

It's not "funny", "weird" or "stupid" if you use your brain and think for a moment. Cellphones aren't advertised as cellphones because... they aren't cellphones. Not anymore. They aren't even pocket computers with connectivity. They are complex, integrated, highly sophisticated multi-purpose devices that do tons of stuff AND also can be used for calls. We take them for granted without actually realizing how complex and useful these little devices have become.

As for photography, at least smartphone manufacturers innovate and push the boundaries of what can possibly be done with tiny little sensors. They invest in computational photography, experiment with new filter arrays, processing techniques, stacking... Mobile photography has advanced a lot in past years. And camera companies do diddly squat and instead keep releasing the same stuff in different bodies and with different mounts, trying to squeeze as much money as possible without actually doing much. So yeah, people complain.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2019 at 11:17 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50R Review (1742 comments in total)
In reply to:

TN Args: I can't help thinking that this pretty camera is the micro-medium-format (µMF) equivalent of the Canon EOS RP in full frame. The formula is the same: put a well-outdated sensor into a compact body with cut-down features and a low price.

Using that comparison, the premium for going MF is 350%. For which you get what DPR describes as "cheap and cramped-feeling controls" with an IQ increase that might be clear over the RP but in relation to a better FF body DPR describes as "somewhere between slight and non-existent".

Is it an introductory stepping stone to 100 MP µMF, in the same way as an EOS RP is a stepping stone into Canon cameras to come? Possibly, but I can't see many people who are able to afford $10,000 bodies needing an introductory stepping stone.

>well-outdated sensor

Compared to what exactly? Are there many better medium format sensors available out there? Or at least sensors that give superior image quality? If not, then how is it "well-outdated"?

I don't own the GFX system, but I can see what it can do and I fail to understand where people get this "outdated sensor" ideas.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2019 at 14:28 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Panasonic S1R preview from Barcelona (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

milkod2001: Big camera with big lenses. Completely kills point going with mirrorless. If i want a brick camera to hold comfortably i'd get D850 with 100' native lenses instead. Don't know what were Panasonic guys thinking. Probably wanted to make something different at all cost. When sales be terrible they blame smartphones but their incompetency.

I don’t know how people come up with this “kills the point of mirrorless” argument. Mirrorless isn’t all about size and not everyone wants/likes teensy cameras with crap ergnomics for serious work. And these cameras are aimed at pro’s, not couch-photographers. Plenty of people want a chunky robust work tool with EVF, reduced or eliminated black-out and no issues with focus adjustment.

If you want a small camera - there are plenty of those. Fuji just unveiled an X-T30, Sony also has small APS-C offers and MFT is still a good option too. Full frame cameras on the other hand are and will be chunky to at least some degree, because they are mounted with big, chunky and heavy FF glass.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2019 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

jor23: 16 prime was on my wish list. But I just sold off my Fuji gear.
People mostly praise Fuji’s ergonomics. But it was a pain to switch between af-a and af-c. Also, the shooting mode collar on the XT doesn’t work if you have gloves on. Switching between stills and video was also slow.

The dials are nice. However they are slow to use.

You really don’t have to defend or justify your choice. Only fanboys think one system suits everyone. As much as I like my Fuji, I can definitely see how some may not find its ergonomics convenient despite all the praise. It really does encourage slower, more considerate shooting which not everyone likes. I grab fuji for casual shooting on the street and for portraits (man that 56mm is fan-FREAKING-tastic), and it brings back the feeling of shooting film, but for things like wildlife, sports and birds I would prefer Nikon any day.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2019 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

Eugene A: So my question is would I need a 16mm f2.8 since I have the 23mm f2.8

As Karroly has already said, you are the one to judge. I would probably say no.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2019 at 17:58 UTC
Total: 613, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »