Michael_13

Lives in Germany Germany
Joined on Mar 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 446, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »

Excellent lens, but the JPGs are not doing it justice.

The RAWs however, are also quite misleading as I found:
- strong moiré patterns on the money bills make Nikon A look worse
- stronger default sharpening than for other models makes it look better

I took the RAWs of Nikon A and E-M5 and developed them to best sharpness & detail with their supplied RAW converters. My result:
Both are practically on par and deliver excellent iq. Some parts of the scene favor E-M5, others Nikon A. Moirés are almost gone.

Another comparison showed that the lens of Nikon A matches that of Oly XZ-1/2. Superb.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 17:43 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Imagefoundry: How I wish that this nonsense with Lightroom would just cease already. Version 7.4 still doesn't work with xtrans, it just doesn't work in a slightly different manner. Talk about procrustean bed....

Using LR output to compare camera brands amounts to partisan tactics, in my honest opinion. Its demosaicing engine is as bad as the user interface and color controls are good; and the output from different cameras is wildly inconsistent.

@Imagefoundry:
I don't like/use LR either, but it is very widely spread.
Besides: DPR offers RAWs for download, so you can do your own comparisons with your preferred software.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2013 at 14:07 UTC
On article Just posted: Nikon Coolpix A real-world samples gallery (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

GeorgeZ: Wow, I just saw for the first time what they charge- almost 1.000€.
You can get a 5200 with 2 lenses for the same money. I know it's a premium compact but how on earth are these prices calculated? The sensor can't be the reason, the electronics or body neither. Remains the lens, but I doubt it's more expensive to make than a 18-55 kit lens. I guess they just want to make 5x the profit they make with a equally priced DSLR.

@GeorgeZ:
The lens is certainly more expensive than a kit version: Better quality and lower quantity.
Look at the prices of excellent primes: 500€ and more are not unusual.
If you know how prices are calculated you understand that selling prices are largely based in cost per unit. You can also imagine that such a camera has eaten a large chunk of development costs, because it is very different from the other models.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.

@Pablo:
Wrong impression. You need to read the whole review. A simple RAW comparison cannot tell the truth about the true performance.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: No RAW. Therefore, no interest at all for serious photographers looking for a 2nd, lighter and all-in-one, camera to bring on their travels.

Pity.

@santa:
Why don't you look further? Fujifilm offers even better models with RAW.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2013 at 13:32 UTC
In reply to:

sarit: I'd like to see the manufacturers put 1" sensor for these bridge cameras or at least 2/3" for god's sake.

@sarit:
Yes, you can put this Sigma on a Nikon 1 with the 1-inch sensor, but will lose wide angle.

Just like Frances wrote: The 10x zoom for Nikon 1 is a good measure. Pulling it up to 30x with F2.8 would make it a lot bigger than it already is.
I don't think manufacturers are holding anything back. At 300€ this camera is a bargain imo.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2013 at 13:25 UTC
On photo Hornet mirror in the Wasps & Hornets challenge (2 comments in total)

Great photo! I like the color contrast and the reflection of its "face".

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2013 at 09:41 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

sarit: I'd like to see the manufacturers put 1" sensor for these bridge cameras or at least 2/3" for god's sake.

Problem is, the laws of optics don't like what you like.
If you need 1" superzoom you can buy Nikon 1.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 17:30 UTC
On article Nikon posts sample images and video from Coolpix A (50 comments in total)

Great sharpness and no visible noise, but one thing bothers me:

Skin colors. Especially lips look very artificial to me.
So far I've only known this problem from Panasonic.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 21:18 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: ??? Why? A 28mm 2.8 lens?

Why cant some one release one of these with a 32-35mm(50mm) F1.8/2 lens.
I just want one with a 50mm equiv!!!!!!!!!!

:(

@Combat
Why not take a PEN + 25mm/F1.4 instead?

Makes more sense in imo.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 20:01 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

gl2k: Oh Dear Fuji. Goofing with a RAW file is never such an ingenious idea. The noise level is incredibly low compared to the elite DSLRs (Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx) but none of the higher ISO images is sharp but soft and smeared. Sorry that sucks and belongs to a entry level body at best.

@gl2k

Maybe you should also read the text and not only look at the pictures. Might save you from drawing wrong conclusions.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 10:14 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

mumintroll: Fuji X-E1 not bad. But personally I think much better IQ have Sigmas DP1,DP2,DP3. I would really like to compare them in Raw.
For studio, where is lot of light, for landscapers are Sigmas the best choice. I just regret, that we will never see review of those cameras here.

Not so sure about this.
As much as i like the Foveon's sharpness - sometimes it produces strange colors.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 10:00 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Comparing it against the default competitors in the RAW studio test image, it looks soft as can be. Resolution looks like 1/2 that of the other 16mp images and vastly below that of the NEX-7. Even moving the little square to other parts of the scene pretty much show that as well. I wonder why?
Odder still, the resolution target test looks good!

@Rich
Read the review and understand it.
Then look at the right pics for comparison.
Then draw your conclusions.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2013 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

harry cannoli: $2800, viewfinder optional?

I just can't get past that. Blame it on my age. Texting is a solution looking for a problem, a Tweet is the sound a bird makes, and as cameras go, the viewfinder is as integral a component as the shutter.

$2800 and I charge the camera the same way I charge my phone?

Have fun with that.

Harry, it is a bit hard to vote for a built-in EVF, since the main point of this camera is size. Offering it as a separate solution is very wise i.m.o. Since you really need a VF, you need to stick with larger cameras.

The missing charger is a bad joke though, but somehow typical for Sony.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 14:16 UTC
On article High End P&S versus Micro Four Thirds (24 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ad B: Hi,
nice comparison, but...
If you make a comparison in August 2012, please don't use cameras from Januari 2011 and July 2011.
I understand you have those two cams, but you had to do this in 2011.
Now it was better to compare the OM-D with ??.

@Ad:
1. This is a review by a forum member, not dpr staff.
2. The results about handling & lens behavior are still valid with current models.
3. Both cameras are still available at VERY attractive price levels.

My conclusion: Great little review for someone who hunts for great pictures and not the latest "gear".

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 11:21 UTC
In reply to:

ThomKing: Wow guys..."The last pic - the group indoors - is of terrible quality.
I think it is a shame to waste such an opportunity by using improper equipment." lets keep things in perspective It was shot with an iPhone in a location with no control over the bright daylight streaming in from all sides.

And..."I think the real reason is, he is afraid the portrait pictures will become horrible if he will use the iPhone."
I don't think they would have been "horrible" but kudos for acknowledging the issue and moving forward. Shooting 40 couples and printing all in a short time frame you made the right choice. Oh and lets compare their wedding portrait quality to any other portrait they have had, Oh wait they have never had their portrait taken before and have nothing to compare it to. I am sure they will cherish their portrait regardless of what it was taken on or the quality for the rest of their lives together. My 2 cents.

Thom, you're right. Looking at the whole context my comment is very narrow minded.
But coming from the dpreview mainpage, the headline for this article sounded so much like a marketing stunt for Apple that I simply reduced my statement to the "gear level".
Fortunately our discussion broadened after that - largely due to Kevin's professional reaction.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 09:16 UTC
In reply to:

Lan: "the processes can be more energy efficient"

Wording noted. Not "is", or even "will be", but "can be".

That said, at least they've managed to put together a prototype device; that's further along the development track than many get!

This is probably a very scientific way of expressing their expectations.

Keep in mind: These guys are engineers, not marketing people! :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 09:02 UTC
Total: 446, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »