Iuvenis

Joined on Aug 21, 2017

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

It’s fair to say Canon are having a tough few weeks :-(

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 20:39 UTC as 65th comment

Looks like Canon saw some of the forum speculation about equivalence and its effect on lens size, and decided to run with it....

Seriously though, I get the point of the 800 f11. 800 is seriously exotic. Most people only got there by attaching 2x converters to a 400 f5.6, and you lose nothing in that (narrow) use case.

However, 600 at f11 is pretty dismal. There are great, cheap zooms that go to 600 already, and plenty of lenses that go to 400 that still work great with 1.4x teleconverters. They're all better than f11 at 600mm

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2020 at 13:42 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jeff Greenberg: ---
some WOULD pay more for stills-only camera
better than its video-stills mate, depending
on what was better & by how much...

IMO, this article don't recognize order
of events in camera development:
engineers constantly building prototypes;
marketers determine which can make profit;
many prototypes ===> few market models;
so stills-only prototypes are abundant
& sitting on shelves...

Actually, the starting point isn't a prototype. You could argue the starting point is feedback from the previous model, but the point at which a new camera really takes shape is the point at which it becomes a concept, well before a prototype is built.

I very much doubt there are many stills-only prototypes in existence, because at concept stage video features are already important

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2020 at 14:57 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1476 comments in total)

Seems to be a super camera, maybe it's time for me to upgrade.

I wouldn't worry about the AF, my X-T2 has come on in leaps and bounds through firmware updates. The issues noted by the reviewers (eg over-reliance on colour to track) seem to be issues with the algorithm rather than the hardware, so I've no doubt that will improve over time as well.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2020 at 16:41 UTC as 124th comment
On article Ricoh video details the next flagship Pentax APS-C DSLR (656 comments in total)

As a former Pentax user, I wish them well. However, I can't help feeling regret for what might have been.

The K5 was a really amazing camera; introduced in 2010 before mirrorless was mainstream. It featured an amazing sensor by the standards of the time, was considerably more compact than similar DSLRs, had ibis, was WR, and provided a practical way to use old film era glass.

It had its weak points (primarily the AF and a restricted range of modern lenses), but it seemed Pentax had only to make one last push to make the best APSC camera system on the market. Particularly since the mirrorless cameras of that time also had serious AF limitations.

Sadly, it was not to be. Even assuming this camera fixes the AF issues, the show has moved on.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2020 at 09:03 UTC as 112th comment | 15 replies
On article Fujifilm GF 45-100mm F4 OIS sample gallery (57 comments in total)

I'm not sure what some people are looking for here. There's basically one reason to get into the GFX system, and that's to resolve more detail than any other camera/lens can offer without being tripod bound.

It doesn't matter if it's sharper at the pixel level than other combinations, because it offers so many more pixels.

Likewise, the size of the sensor compared to film medium format cameras is also irrelevant. Medium format film cameras didn't offer many lenses that were faster than 35mm equivalents either; f2.8 was the fastest for most and even the Mamiya 80 f1.9 was only an f1.2 equivalent or so. There were several f1.2 or faster 35mm lenses, including the f1 Leica M Noctilux which came out in the 70s I believe. The primary reason for medium format was always to obtain more resolution.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2020 at 06:50 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Thomas Richter: Why is it that I only learn about significant shortcomings of a camera after it has been discontinued? Have had this "aha" effect a couple of times now.

Every serious review of the older X100 cameras pointed out this shortcoming. It was even mentioned in the manual. The only reason they didn't make more of it was that it wasn't a deal-breaker; just a limitation of a feature (the macro mode) that didn't exist in comparable ILC cameras in the first place.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2020 at 09:27 UTC

The problem with expensive fixed lens cameras is that the lens has to be disposed of with the body. Lenses generally depreciate much more slowly than bodies, so you end up losing money much faster than with an ILC system of comparable cost.

It's not just about the price sticker in the shop window, it's also about the amount of money you have to keep paying to have a reasonably up to date camera.

The great thing about the X100 line is that it's always been middle of the road. Cheap enough to buy on the side of another system, good enough for serious photography, compact enough to carry everywhere, good enough ergos for those without tiny hands.

I'm just not sure a Fuji FF camera (or MF camera) would rival that. They would rival the Q2/RX1rii for sure, but how many of those cameras are actually sold? It's not even clear that Sony have any plans to continue that line, and Leica are set up for low volume/high price products.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2020 at 18:02 UTC as 107th comment | 3 replies

Keep up the good work guys!

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2020 at 12:05 UTC as 258th comment

What an earth were they thinking releasing the reflections shot? It's not even a keeper for a casual photographer, and they're giving it as an example of a premium lens! Puts in perspective the comments about DPR's sample galleries.

I note the 24-200 images don't show any details in the corners, but I suspect that is a deliberate move. Unless proved otherwise, I'll still believe the Oly 12-100 is the only good superzoom.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2020 at 17:37 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

cjones63: So these photos are supposed to show what a $6k medium format camera is capable of doing. The photos would reflect poorly on a cellphone camera! Seriously, is there a photographer in the house??

No, they're not. It's not realistic to expect any photographer to produce top quality work using unfamiliar kit. Instead, they're designed to show how a lens or lens/camera combination behaves in particular conditions and settings you might encounter as a user, so you can make an informed buying decision.

If you want to see what you can do, look up the work of people like Jonas Rask or go to the medium format forum on DPR.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2020 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

Pedro Moreira: Not even medium format can recover highlights of the sun reflecting in the sea with current technology.

What next, do you want details of the surface of the sun in landscape images where the sun's in the frame? Clipping specular highlights is not only acceptable, it's essential for a realistic image.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2020 at 14:43 UTC

The problem hidden in these numbers is not just that Canon sold fewer cameras and made less money. They also saw a bigger reduction in revenue than in units sold. That means that in a market where everyone is trying to move upmarket and increase their per unit price, their per unit price is declining. That appears to be predicted to continue into 2020 as well.

Of course, Canon can turn that round. But it’s certainly something that will worry them more than just the headline declines.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2020 at 21:38 UTC as 68th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm X-Pro3 pre-production sample gallery (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: Oh, no ... same old bad wormy waxy xTrans artifacts and fake detail, specially in green landscapes :( Which make things look weird and overdone.

P.S.
Fanb0y replies not welcome. You can keep your troll venom. It doesn't work on me. Get a bigger monitor, open your eyes and get over it.

Nikon 2020 - it's interesting you highlight the centre of image 17 (presumably you mean the upper centre) as the background in image 17 is outside the depth of field, at least for critical purposes. It was shot at f5.6 on a 50mm lens. Look at the middle ground, and you don't see the same effects.

Most people complaining about the watercolour effect are in fact complaining about areas that are out of focus NOT areas in focus. There would be no fine detail visible there from any camera, whatever the sensor technology or raw developer.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2019 at 08:24 UTC

Look not in my eyes, for fear/They mirror true the sight I see...

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2019 at 11:49 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply

I can understand how there could be specialist use cases for which previous RX100 generations are inadequate, and this is better. I'm not sure those uses require a pocketable camera, however. I found it hard to use the RX100iii to its full capabilities in view of the form factor and limited controls, and this seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction (same externals, more powerful internals).

However, YMMV.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2019 at 14:18 UTC as 90th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

JakeB: Somebody help me out here.

Is there a big weight difference between the 310 g 18-55 and this 440g lens?

I understand that's 130 g more, but is that a lot or barely noticeable?

Thanks.

It's a personal thing. However, as a rule of thumb, I'd say that lenses handle best when lighter than the body they're mounted on. So on the X-E or X-Txx bodies, the difference might be noticeable. On the X-Tx or X-Pro bodies, probably not.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2019 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "The fundamentally Big Deal here is that the GFX 100 is the first medium format digital camera to really compete with modern full-frame DSLR or mirrorless ILCs in terms of everyday shooting versatility."

Um, no, that's the Leica S Typ 007, and frankly really the more than 10 year old Leica S2.

I think you're missing the point. The Leica S may well compete with full frame ILCs for some types of photography. However, the same could be said of the GFX50s. This is a leap forward for medium format.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 16:08 UTC

Wow, a review with some humour. I like it. Photography doesn't have to be deadly serious all the time.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 15:56 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrey K: "at a technical level, is basically an upsized version of the sensors used in the APS-C format X-T3 and X-T30. Upsized by 4X, in fact. Yes, the 43.8 x 32.9mm medium-format sensor in this camera has an area a full four times greater than APS-C, and 1.7X greater than full-frame. As well as the obvious increase in output resolution, this should also ensure a significant boost in image quality compared to smaller sensor formats, especially when it comes to Raw dynamic range."

No, not really. Upsized sensor from X-T30 would provide 4x resolution of X-T30, but exactly the same RAW dynamic range. That's the reason why no one puts upsized phone sensors in medium format cameras.

For better RAW dynamic range you have to either use bigger pixels, or newer sensor, or better processing (Pixel like image stacking). Ok, 16 bit processing probably would provide some increase in IQ, it remains to be seen how big would be the difference.

If a larger sensor and smaller sensor camera have identically sized pixels and use the same technology, the larger sensor will have more usable dynamic range. That's because dynamic range is not just about when the highlights clip, but how far you can push the shadows. For a given output size, a larger sensor needs enlarged less, so shadow noise is not such a big issue.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 10:29 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »