random78

Joined on Jun 3, 2010

Comments

Total: 244, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

random78: I posted the following comment on the author's website but looks like it was promptly deleted by the author within a minute. I posted it again, so lets see if it survives this time, or the author deletes it again:

"I think it is sloppy for an organization like Netflix to be careless in this manner. At the same time though, I don't see these images having any real value as an intellectual property. No one would likely pay more than a few cents for these images, if that. What is likely happening is that Netflix will pay the author some amount just to avoid or limit bad publicity, even though the pictures won't be worth what they will have to pay. While I am all for making the corporates accountable, in this particular instance it looks more like the author using his visibility as a blog writer to exploit the situation and forcing Netflix to pay him for what would otherwise be a very nondescript set of images. just my 2 cents."

There are many many images like that available for sale on stock image sites. So no intern needed. For example here on iStock you can download a much higher resolution image of a VHS tape for $12:

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/black-video-cassette-gm607639342-104167837

Alternatively You can pay $40 to get a month of their service and download 10 images like that. The image from author's website would be a web resolution image which likely will sell for much less. But even if lets say the author's image could have fetched a few dollars instead of a few cents, that doesn't change the point. If someone has to use a few VHS tape images in their campaign, they can easily get those for a few dollars or tens of dollars. In this case however the author will likely be able to use his position as a blog writer on a well known site to exert pressure on NetFlix and get much more than the commercial value of these images because netflix otherwise will have to deal with bad press.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2017 at 21:38 UTC

I posted the following comment on the author's website but looks like it was promptly deleted by the author within a minute. I posted it again, so lets see if it survives this time, or the author deletes it again:

"I think it is sloppy for an organization like Netflix to be careless in this manner. At the same time though, I don't see these images having any real value as an intellectual property. No one would likely pay more than a few cents for these images, if that. What is likely happening is that Netflix will pay the author some amount just to avoid or limit bad publicity, even though the pictures won't be worth what they will have to pay. While I am all for making the corporates accountable, in this particular instance it looks more like the author using his visibility as a blog writer to exploit the situation and forcing Netflix to pay him for what would otherwise be a very nondescript set of images. just my 2 cents."

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 21:00 UTC as 7th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

random78: Once again the DxoMark 'score' hides away the more useful information contained in their measurement graphs. If you look at the graphs the A7R III sensor performs slightly better than D850 across the ISO range. The SNR for A7rIII is better throughout the ISO range, the Dynamic Range is better at most of the ISOs and so on. The only trick that D850 has up its sleeves is the ISO 32 mode but even that only gives 0.11 EV higher dynamic range compared to A7RIII at ISO 100. So overall A7RIII seems the superior sensor though not by a huge margin.

There is a tiny almost imperceptible difference, but you can notice it for example here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d850&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_3=nikon_d5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr126_1=1&attr171_0=2&attr171_1=2&attr171_2=2&attr171_3=2&normalization=compare&widget=554&x=0.8391818180753688&y=0.18723342599666773

But my comment was more about relating DxoMark's scores to their own measurements. You are right that there is a separate and valid question around what that data means in real life.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 20:09 UTC

Once again the DxoMark 'score' hides away the more useful information contained in their measurement graphs. If you look at the graphs the A7R III sensor performs slightly better than D850 across the ISO range. The SNR for A7rIII is better throughout the ISO range, the Dynamic Range is better at most of the ISOs and so on. The only trick that D850 has up its sleeves is the ISO 32 mode but even that only gives 0.11 EV higher dynamic range compared to A7RIII at ISO 100. So overall A7RIII seems the superior sensor though not by a huge margin.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 18:24 UTC as 50th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

kevinyoung: So the 645Z and the X1D are essentially identical in all individual tests, yet the X1D scores higher despite the glaring limitation of not venturing past ISO 3200 when the 645Z goes well beyond? Hmmmmm...just another crack in the foundation of trust for DXOmark. And yes, ISOs 6400 and 12,800 are just as useable on the 645Z as they are on the A7R2/D810/D850/etc. This is a fail for Hasse and DXOmark.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Hasselblad-X1D-50c-versus-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Pentax-645Z___1114_1035_951

With DxoMark you have to ignore the scores and look at the graphs. They have a lot of useful data but try to summarize that in useless summary scores.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

random78: Not sure what the point of this article is. It is an APS-C sensor so it will perform as an APS-C sensor. Also DxoMark only tests the sensor so what type of camera the sensor is housed in has zero bearing on the results.

Well, I find the DxoMark data useful (the detailed graphs, not the 'scores' which are fairly arbitrary and not worth much IMHO). However unless you have a good understanding of what that data is telling you and what it is not telling you, it is easy to get misled by it.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 17:04 UTC

Not sure what the point of this article is. It is an APS-C sensor so it will perform as an APS-C sensor. Also DxoMark only tests the sensor so what type of camera the sensor is housed in has zero bearing on the results.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 05:20 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)

There are three advantages that you typically get while going to a larger sensor: Better DOF control, better low light performance, and better DR. With the slower lens that G1X III has, the first two advantages are completely negated. And Canon sensors are not the best in terms of DR anyway, so even from DR perspective its not much of a win. Not quite sure what is the APS-C sensor buying us here to justify the much steeper price. If they could have pulled off f2.0 -f3.9 of G1X Mark II with this APS-C sensor then it would have been interesting.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 20:04 UTC as 40th comment

Thanks for updating the title!. The original title was definitely extremely misleading and alarming :)

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 17:33 UTC as 19th comment

This is great!! Though I agree that some of the themes started getting repetitive.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 20:08 UTC as 67th comment
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (395 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: DPR: In the Specs, you should have "Viewfinder Optional" rather than "Viewfinder No".

@Eleson - you are missing the point. Most cameras without a built-in viewfinder, do not have this ability to add a viewfinder. So it is important to list that for this camera it is possible to add this. If the specs say that the camera does not have a viewfinder then most people would assume that it is not possible to have a viewfinder on this camera.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

Aroart: I was tossed between a rx100 m3 $799, a5100 $599, pani lx100 $699 3yrs ago .. so I bought and played with them .. while the rx was smaller it felt to slippery and control dials were to cramped . The lx has great ergonomics but really missed having a flip touch screen. I kept the a 5100.. The a5100 is not that much bigger can fit in most jackets and has a very usable touch screen. If you look at the test samples and compare the a5100 iq to cameras twice the price you will be shocked. I know for a fact it made my 7dm2 look pathetic.. the a5100 was one of the best pocket cameras I've ever owned..

@aramgrg. I used an RX100 for a year. It was a great ground-breaking camera. However I eventually moved to an EOS-M + 22mm f2 and was much happier. Of course its not apples to apples since one is a zoom camera and other was a fixed lens option. But when you are trying to find highest quality in a small package, you have to make compromise one way or the other. I now also have a Canon G7x which is Canon's version of RX100 series and actually prefer it over my previous RX100. However no matter how good the performance of the 1" sensor becomes, it can't give you the same look as an APS-C sensor with a fast f2 or f1.8 prime.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 18:07 UTC

Over the years I have used three such mirrorless pancake lenses:

1. Panasonic 20mm 1.7
2. Samsung 30mm f2 (not covered in the chart)
3. Canon 22mm f2

As the chart in the article illustrates, these three lenses provided the biggest DOF control + low light capability in a small package. The unsung Canon EOS-M + 22mm f2 is the most compact option and hard to match. The only reason I moved away from it was the slow AF of EOS-M. The reality though is that pancake lenses by their design are slow focusing lenses so even with fast bodies such as the ones from Panasonic and Samsung, these lenses tend to be slow to focus. Apart from that limitation I consider these three to be the best options in terms of offering highest capability in the most compact package.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 17:39 UTC as 116th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a9 first look videos (301 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glenn Barber: My biggest concern is how this mirrorless focuses with Longer lenses 300mm. I have a A7 and A7R and neither focuses quickly with adapted long lenses. If this is to be a sports and wildlife camera - focus acquisition with long lenses is critical.

First of all your A7 and A7r are not fast focusing cameras regardless of whether the lenses are long or not - they don't even have PDAF. A7TII is significantly better than those and the A9 is claimed to be faster than A7RII. Secondly the focusing speed with adapted lenses is not an indicator at all of focusing speed with native lenses.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 03:10 UTC
In reply to:

agrumpyoldsod: I am sure they have a sharper image than the first image (horses) that you guys could have posted.

Images 4 and 5 seem to be taken using DJI drones with small sensor cameras, so that explains the lower quality. Image 3 is A7R II, however the posted version is too low resolution to assess quality. Not sure about the first two images.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 06:10 UTC

Olympus often seems to get more limelight in the history of Micro-Four Thirds and mirrorless. However I think the real breakthrough product was the Panasonic G1. Obviously it was the first mirrorless camera, but also it had three important features which ensured that mirrorless will be taken as a serious camera system rather than a glorified P&S. First it offered an EVF experience which was a credible alternative to OVF. The EVFs before G1 were extremely poor whereas G1 had an amazing EVF for that time. Second it had a pretty fast AF in single shot. Third it had a full set of controls expected by DSLR users. The E-P1 from Olympus didn't have any of these features. I am pretty sure that if it was the first mirrorless instead of G1, it would have been dismissed by most reviewers as a 'P&S' camera with a large sensor which did not have what it takes to meet the needs of a 'serious' photographer. G1 ensured that people viewed mirrorless as mini-DSLR, rather than big P&S.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 03:38 UTC as 74th comment | 10 replies
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)

Based on the description of the issue in this article, I totally agree with the complaint.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 16:12 UTC as 57th comment
In reply to:

photogecko: Did they fix the shadow banding? Or how about the price?

@vscd: You might want to check prices for used Leica cameras before making that claim! Leica M 240 was released at $7000 just over 3 years ago and already sells for around $3500 in the used market despite the fact that it is a 'current model'. Nikon D4 was released around 4 years ago at $6000 and now sells for $2500 in the used market, despite the fact that it was discontinued in 2014 and replaced by D4s, which itself has been replaced by D5. Not quite sure Leica is holding its value particularly better than the Nikons.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Hands-on with new Sigma SD cameras and lenses (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Ocando: Why they simply created an adapter for APS-C lenses? Like Olympus did with the 4/3s lenses? What a way of restricting your lens options.

It is for both APS-C and full frame:

"MC-11, which lets you attach Sigma's most recent lenses (in either Canon or Sigma mount) on full-frame or APS-C Sony E-mount bodies"

Olympus was totally different. The only DSLR lenses they had were 4/3rd so obviously thats the only lenses they could adapt.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 18:39 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Hands-on with new Sigma SD cameras and lenses (313 comments in total)

A mirrorless camera with SLR mount doesn't seem like a great idea. They should have created a mirrorless mount and then bundle with it an adapter for SA lenses just like the adapter they have just launched for e-mount. That way they could not only leverage their existing SA lenses but also leverage their mirror less lenses such as the 19mm f2.8, 30mm f2.8, 60m f2.8 and the recent 30mm f1.4

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 18:35 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
Total: 244, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »