shademaster

Joined on Sep 13, 2011

Comments

Total: 164, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

shademaster: you guys should look up "logarithm" ;)

I agree with you, 99.9999%

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

Mark9473: Camera production numbers are back to where they were in the 1980's. Camera manufacturers were doing well back then, so there's little reason for all the doom and gloom. The bubble they created in the early 2000's is clearly over but I don't think anybody realistically thought that was going to last. They saturated the market and that's all there's to it.

I think some people mistakenly take these graphs as an indication of cameras used. That's a big mistake. I think a lot of the digital cameras sold in the last decade are still in use. I also think the vast majority of smartphone users only occasionally use it to take a picture.

I would wager even the most grizzled, long-in-the-tooth, old-timers on dpreview who lament the lost art of composition, deride the chimpers, have kodachrome in their fridge, and claim that canon and nikon will rule forever -- even *they* ,quite often, use their cell phone to... get this... take a photo. I certainly take photos with my cell phone on a weekly basis and with my ILC and fancy compact much less frequently (a shame, actually). I think the days of consumer-oriented dedicated photography equipment are numbered.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 18:09 UTC

I'm currently happy posting photos to social media both taken with my phone and with my ILC and fancy portrait prime lens. There is a place for both.

The main advantage of the ILC is DOF control (and quality of bokeh), lower noise, and higher DR. It's likely that the latter two will become "good enough" very soon. For the DOF control (and quality of bokeh), the new iPhone+ is interesting, but I'm guessing that only after light-field imaging becomes standard (this will likely happen eventually... maybe 20 years out) will we be able to dispense with the fancy ILC setups.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 13:46 UTC as 43rd comment
In reply to:

Joed700: This makes a lot of sense...just recently, I took photos during my New Zealand tour. I brought along my D750 with the 24-70mm zoom and my iPhone 6+. The jpegs from my iPhone are phenomenal. On the other hand, I had to spend hours doing post processing with my RAW to get similar results.... If it wasn't for the fact that I needed to make large prints...my iPhone is already sufficient for snapshots minus the weight. Point & Shoot/DSLR manufacturers need to talk to people in the smartphone industry. Perhaps they can learn a thing or two from them.

please...

this argument holds no water. as if lightroom on a modern workstation rendering RAW files wouldn't blow away a phone in terms of cpu power in on-the-fly jpeg conversion...

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 13:39 UTC

you guys should look up "logarithm" ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 13:30 UTC as 44th comment | 7 replies
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (446 comments in total)

will the next iteration (T8i) even have a mirror at all? why bother if dpaf is so good? I guess EVF lag and blackout needs to be tolerable.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 05:24 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

shademaster: stupid question: why is the subject distance not an important parameter? e.g. nobody ever talks about a given prime being soft for close objects but sharp for far ones. why not? (sorry if this is basic optics)

Could you imagine any of those you tested which were lemons (relatively speaking) in optical bench at infinity might actually be gems in Imatest or DxO?

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (232 comments in total)

stupid question: why is the subject distance not an important parameter? e.g. nobody ever talks about a given prime being soft for close objects but sharp for far ones. why not? (sorry if this is basic optics)

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 17:54 UTC as 49th comment | 8 replies
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1358 comments in total)
In reply to:

gLOWx: M43/43 key element are "lenses".
You can use most of them fully open, and get sharpness you would get closed by 1 stop, or even 2, on FF/APS-C.
And so, you need less ISO bump.
It may sound strange at first, but until you really need very thin DOF or very high ISO, there is less need for bigger sensor.
I see many ppl with FF almost always stopping their lenses, to get more sharpness/DOF. Even with portraits, where FF lenses are supposed to be wide open.
And what happen to the 2 stops ISO FF advantage, when you need to close by 1 stop to be sharp ? It is now only 1 stop ;) And even less on APS-C.

43/M43 lenses are the key. Sharpness wide open, giving you enough DOF and light. And the new 25mm (50mm FOV equivalent) f1.2 is going to prove it, again :D

On my side, i will keep my mk1...and buy more 43 legacy phase detect lenses :D

"M43 are much more expensive than comparable APS-C or full frame lenses."

Word! I want reasonably priced lenses!

I'm thinking of buying E-M1mkI since the prices are nice now. But when I compare the μ4/3 total cost of ownership with a couple of fast primes and the long zoom (Panny 35-100 f/2.8 or FF equivalent 70-200 f/4), the FF formula seems much more economical.

I look at Fuji and Sony and think "ripoff". Seems like μ4/3 isn't as bad, but no mirrorless can compete with the equivalent FF DSLR lens prices. Here's hoping Canon releases a FF 6DmkII with OSPDAF (like 80D or M5). I guess people can use A7ii/A7Rii with adapter to access the canon FF lenses, but the adapter seems like a kludgey solution to me.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: It's ironic how people complain about the price. When I bought my Original OM1 many many years ago it cost more than this in real terms.

right. Initially I thought he said "E-M1" and meant that inflation can account for $1300->$2000 in 3 years. I was skeptical.

Now I see he said "OM1". I have no idea what film SLRs cost back in the day, so if he says E-M2 is just keeping up with inflation going back to the film SLR days, who am I to argue.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: It's ironic how people complain about the price. When I bought my Original OM1 many many years ago it cost more than this in real terms.

Sorry... he said "OM-1" I mentally inserted a "D" there.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 14:09 UTC

at $2k for the mk-II body only, it seems like the mk-I at $1300 with the 12-40 will sell like hotcakes. I've been tempted by μ4/3, so I hope they don't bump up the price of the mk-I ... (which still seems like a great stills camera with a nice buffer and fast AF) after the mk-II announcement

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 14:08 UTC as 94th comment
In reply to:

razadaz: It's ironic how people complain about the price. When I bought my Original OM1 many many years ago it cost more than this in real terms.

? "Real terms?"

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 14:01 UTC
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (866 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fabian from Swizzy Land: I'm a MacBook Pro user and I will wait for the next major upgrade before I buy another MacBook, even if it takes 4 years.

The concept of what a general purpose computer is supposed to do has shifted. Just type "python" on the command line and start writing computer programs if that's your thing. How many "private citizens" are going to legitimately need deep access to the guts of the OS and all the underlying APIs to do what they need/want to do with the computer? Now, if autocorrect starts to prevent me from typing curse words or making political statements on facebook, or if they automatically send all my personal info to apple, then I'll start to worry.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2016 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Great lens for hiding ugly cameras. Downside, photographers need to think about their footwear

even pants...

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

elouisyoung: ALL THIS HOOPLAH... and yet the e-mount has NO excellent aps-c lenses. damnit, just make a legit 16-50 f2.8 that ISN'T an optical turd like the 16-70 f4.

exactly. What was wrong with a6300? They need an APS-C 16-50 f/2.8. This idea that people will use full frame glass on APS-C is so bizarre for me. I guess they expect people to adapt the A-mount APS-C lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 17:43 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80 Review (672 comments in total)
In reply to:

shademaster: Cue the opinion piece by Barney lamenting the fact that they only put the 16MP sensor in it and are not being innovative enough because they choose to hold back the absolute latest tech in one of their mid-range cameras ;)

Tough crowd, that DPR editorial staff.

I bet people still buy it...

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:07 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80 Review (672 comments in total)

Cue the opinion piece by Barney lamenting the fact that they only put the 16MP sensor in it and are not being innovative enough because they choose to hold back the absolute latest tech in one of their mid-range cameras ;)

Tough crowd, that DPR editorial staff.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 13:05 UTC as 186th comment | 3 replies

I think we all just got trolled by Barney :/

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 23:48 UTC as 161st comment
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2124 comments in total)

They get DPAF with touch-to-focus working on a full frame camera and don't give it an articulating screen??? How much more effort would that have been?

Maybe 6DmkII??? Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 18:58 UTC as 210th comment
Total: 164, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »