kociasek

Lives in Poland Wroclaw, Poland
Works as a translator
Joined on Dec 6, 2005

Comments

Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vegetable Police: A fully articulating screen would have been nice for us 1 man video shooters.

You would pay for full articulation by giving up all the buttons to the left side of the screen. It only makes sense on lower-tier cameras, which have fewer buttons and settings.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

kociasek: 'increased crop factor may be relevant to you, especially if you enjoy shooting with long lenses."
No, the crop factor is much more important if you shoot at wide angles, where every extra mm significantly changes how much you can get in the frame.

@Karroly
The difference at telephoto ranges is not particularly noticeable and can be resolved by small cropping. By contrast, at the (ultra)wide ranges, even 1 mm can sometimes make or break a photo.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 18:21 UTC

'increased crop factor may be relevant to you, especially if you enjoy shooting with long lenses."
No, the crop factor is much more important if you shoot at wide angles, where every extra mm significantly changes how much you can get in the frame.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 16:29 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: The difference between 1.6 and 1.5 crop factors is only about 6 percent. Could someone explain how is that relevant to anything?

There are two real advantages to the x1.5 crop:
1) Better signal to noise ratio.
2) Wider angles with equivalent lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 16:21 UTC

Yeah, let us all give away photos for free so the Unsplash team can keep profiting from us, suckers. We are promised "exposure" and Mr Cho pockets big bucks from our creative content. Fair deal, right? ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 16:47 UTC as 82nd comment | 7 replies

DPReview, you promise another set of sample images of a new lens, but where are proper lens reviews? So far this year you have reviewed just a single lens (yep, one). By contrast, you have been supplying us with plenty of wedding gossip, plane commercials, tutorials, rumors, results of miscellaneous contests etc. Is this site called DPReview or DPTrivia?
BTW, last week I noticed some errors in your Sigma 100-400 lens specifications (the values for the minimum focus distance are wrong by an order of magnitude). I used the provided form to inform you of this and you never fixed it. Disappointing.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 21:06 UTC as 7th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

arob: I would be okay with a 30 day notice and perhaps $99.00 a year but $400.00 no way. Going to update my $25.00 unlimited Flickr account.......

It's spelled Flickr and yes, it does.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
On article Verizon officially acquires Yahoo including Flickr (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "bring the site back to its former glory"

What was better about the site in 2007 than in 2017? I've had an account in every one of those intervening years - and I can't think of anything!

@Roadrunner123
If you want to browse photos on Flickr and see EXIF data immediately, you can do it by visiting http://www.fluidr.com/ . To the right of each photo you will see not only camera settings but also any tags and descriptions. Enjoy!

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 13:39 UTC
On article Video: Nikon D7500 first look (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruekon: My D90 costed €1250 incl. kit lens 16-85mm a bit less than 9 years ago. The D7500 costs €1850 with 18-140mm kit lens. Meaning a price increase of about 4.5% per year, while the average inflation of consumer prices was at 1.2% (would result in about €1400 for the kit). Good deal for Nikon.

@Old Cameras
"A D5600 outperforms the D90 in every single way. "
No, it doesn't, e.g. D90 has a bigger viewfinder, internal focusing motor, and its flash can act as a CLS wireless controller.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2017 at 18:04 UTC

My suggestion - buy a second-hand Samsung NX500 with the kit lens and add to it Samsung pancake 30mm F2 lens. This combo rocks and is quite affordable :-)

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 11:49 UTC as 186th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

kociasek: To all the people who ridicule criticism of live track photos:
1) A poster on Petapixel wrote: "I'm from the area. ... The Amtrak link that runs this is EXTREMELY quiet. It literally sneaks up on you. People get hit by it crossing to the water over the tracks all the time." It's true of many modern trains and railway lines.
2) An engine driver once wrote on "The Online Photographer" how his colleagues had been traumatized for life but such accidents (and people committing suicides).
3) It's VERY difficult to estimate how long it will take a fast running train to cover the last couple of hundred meters. People often foolishly wait until the last moment to get a shot with an approaching train.
4) If a train breaks suddenly, its passengers may get injured as well.
My comment continues below.

5) Comparing the number of deaths on tracks to the number of victims of car crashes etc. is an example of inductive fallacy. Would you ridicule warning people not to jump head-first into an unknown body of water? Yes, most of them survive without any problem but a minority end up paralyzed on a wheelchair or dead. Such stupid, preventable injuries and deaths. Shouldn't we warn the public and discourage such practices? Many people who arrange photo shoots on live tracks are simply not aware that the danger is real. We need to get this massage across - sometimes ignorance kills.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 14:00 UTC

To all the people who ridicule criticism of live track photos:
1) A poster on Petapixel wrote: "I'm from the area. ... The Amtrak link that runs this is EXTREMELY quiet. It literally sneaks up on you. People get hit by it crossing to the water over the tracks all the time." It's true of many modern trains and railway lines.
2) An engine driver once wrote on "The Online Photographer" how his colleagues had been traumatized for life but such accidents (and people committing suicides).
3) It's VERY difficult to estimate how long it will take a fast running train to cover the last couple of hundred meters. People often foolishly wait until the last moment to get a shot with an approaching train.
4) If a train breaks suddenly, its passengers may get injured as well.
My comment continues below.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 14:00 UTC as 102nd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

turretless: Same old, same old. Similar things were happening during PC boom sunset. Where is IBM(Nikon?), Compaq(Fuji?), Gateway(Panasonic?), Dell(Pentax/Ricoh?)... There is a limited space on an over-saturated market with slowly evolving product lines.

In the final round there will be 2 - 3 large manufacturers (Canon, Sony, maybe Oly) and a bunch of Chinese knock-offs, all others photo manufacturers/imaging divisions will go the way of dodo. Good memories and throwback Thursdays will remain though...

You are totally clueless. IBM is still a huge company and its laptop division has become Lenovo, which is No1 in the world. Dell is one of the top three PC sellers in the world. Also, in camera business, Oly is much weaker than Nikon - small market share and constant losses, so there's no way it could jump in its place. Even Sony is unlikely to overtake Nikon.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

Everlast66: I am so happy that I stopped using them years ago when they started insisting to give them my phone number ... for security purposes :)

I just tried to make a "test" account and it is still impossible to make one without giving them your phone number.

How arrogant is that, just after they've leaked the phone numbers and names of all their customers (1 billion people)?

Not 1 billion people but 1 billion accounts - a lot of people create multiple accounts and some of the accounts existing at the time of the hack are already abandoned, dormant or deleted.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 21:03 UTC

Thanks, dpreview, from another Prince fan! I only wish you identified the image that impressed Prince so much during the first meeting with the photographer.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2016 at 08:02 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

kociasek: I'm quite disappointed you didn't ask Mr Lubezki about the "physical presence" of lenses in The Revenant. In this film there are scenes where the lenses show VERY visible flares and ghosting, they are splattered with mud and blood, fogged over with breath vapour etc. Did he think the film would be more immersive this way? To me, and some other viewers I talked to, the effect was the opposite, it reminded us that we were just in a cinema. Also, Mr Lubezki himself says he avoided analogue grain to make the film less romantic, more "real". Doesn't seem consistent with those lens tricks.

@ Rishi Sanyal
"how are you not going to get natural flares and veiling"
You can edit them out in post-processing. After all, they inserted CGI bears, buffaloes and wolves, so they certainly had the right gear and the expertise to be able to do that. BTW, I really enjoyed the camera movements, the wide angles and the natural light. It's just those in-your-face lens artifacts... even my non-photographic wife commented on this during the movie.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

kociasek: I'm quite disappointed you didn't ask Mr Lubezki about the "physical presence" of lenses in The Revenant. In this film there are scenes where the lenses show VERY visible flares and ghosting, they are splattered with mud and blood, fogged over with breath vapour etc. Did he think the film would be more immersive this way? To me, and some other viewers I talked to, the effect was the opposite, it reminded us that we were just in a cinema. Also, Mr Lubezki himself says he avoided analogue grain to make the film less romantic, more "real". Doesn't seem consistent with those lens tricks.

@ Timur Born
A very interesting analysis of the cinematography in the film, thanks.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

kociasek: I'm quite disappointed you didn't ask Mr Lubezki about the "physical presence" of lenses in The Revenant. In this film there are scenes where the lenses show VERY visible flares and ghosting, they are splattered with mud and blood, fogged over with breath vapour etc. Did he think the film would be more immersive this way? To me, and some other viewers I talked to, the effect was the opposite, it reminded us that we were just in a cinema. Also, Mr Lubezki himself says he avoided analogue grain to make the film less romantic, more "real". Doesn't seem consistent with those lens tricks.

@ Dale Baskin
Yeah, I know the scene from Children of Men and I find it impressive, too. However, the "visibility" of lens there makes more sense because it looks as if the events are shot by a war reporter. In "The Revenant", which takes place in 1820s, such association doesn't work.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 08:57 UTC

I'm quite disappointed you didn't ask Mr Lubezki about the "physical presence" of lenses in The Revenant. In this film there are scenes where the lenses show VERY visible flares and ghosting, they are splattered with mud and blood, fogged over with breath vapour etc. Did he think the film would be more immersive this way? To me, and some other viewers I talked to, the effect was the opposite, it reminded us that we were just in a cinema. Also, Mr Lubezki himself says he avoided analogue grain to make the film less romantic, more "real". Doesn't seem consistent with those lens tricks.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 23:44 UTC as 22nd comment | 10 replies
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (523 comments in total)
In reply to:

kociasek: Question to DPReview (Barney Britton?) or any owner of NX500 - can you please confirm that video clips from NX500 cannot be imported into Lightroom CC? I bought the camera recently and was very disappointed to notice this limitation. The conversion tool provided by Samsung didn't help to resolve this. I tried a number of third party conversion programs before I found one that works, but it costs 40 bucks :-(
BTW, I have no problem with opening those videos directly in my Windows 10.

@ Dale Baskin
FYI, even the full version of Wondershare Video Converter is hopeless - yes, it converts H.265 to H.264 but in the process changes the resolution to 1920x1080. Those low-res files get recognized by Lightroom CC, but who cares.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2015 at 17:15 UTC
Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »