random78

Joined on Jun 3, 2010

Comments

Total: 276, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mike CH: I certainly hope the new lenses produce less moire than in the product shots!

How could a lens produce moire? Moire is produced by the camera sensor, not lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

noisephotographer: All the time there are comments that Google phones can't compete with real cameras and that even 1" sensor cameras are much better. That's extremely misleading.
I wonder if these people ever tried a Google HDR+ phone camera. Most people take auto mode JPGs and don't shoot raw in manual mode and it's unreasonable to expect the opposite. When you compare auto mode wide angle jpgs, then most cameras (1", Aps-c, full frame) deliver MUCH worse results: Blown out highlights, much worse dynamic range, bad noise reduction, worse white balance, etc.. I wonder how many people want to live in the past. Large sensor + large aperture can be useless if image processing, white balance, color profile, lens quality and the auto mode algorithms are so much worse. A good example is this: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/9532444565/exposure1.png

I agree that poor exposure, white balance etc can easily offset the advantages of a big sensor. It is also true that high-end phone cameras generally tend to be very good at these aspects. However I disagree with your assertion that "When you compare auto mode wide angle jpgs, then most cameras (1", Aps-c, full frame) deliver MUCH worse results". My 1" camera, DSLR and mirrorless are all great at getting the right exposure in auto mode and features like HDR mode are also available in the mirrorless camera as well as the 1" camera. And the results are certainly better than my premium phone camera if I look closely. However saying that the phone results are very good now and I often don't carry even my 1" camera on most casual outings.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2018 at 19:21 UTC

I must say that the first picture in the article with the caption "The Pixel 2 offers excellent image quality ....." would be one of the worst examples to convince someone on image quality. It is a muddy, noisy shot. There are several other shots in the gallery which are much better -- not sure what dpreview guys were thinking when they decided to use this photo to showcase 'excellent image quality'.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2018 at 18:52 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: Worried about track erosion caused by tripods. This is just crazy.

I love when park management has no clue what they are on about and introduce these rediculous ideas. I can only say that if they want to be strict about rules you should be strict in interpreting them. Just get a quadrupod and you can use it anywhere you like.

@falconeyes: I have no idea that at what size, the group size becomes a problem for them. Nevertheless a group hiking on the trail is very different from a group stopping to setup their tripods. When people are hiking in a group they are generally going in a line with at max 2 or 3 people together. Whereas when a group stops to take a pictures, they are all at the same spot trying to take the picture from the same vantage point and each needs space to setup their tripod without their view being blocked by anyone else. So it is a very different formation then a group hiking.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 20:11 UTC
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: Worried about track erosion caused by tripods. This is just crazy.

I love when park management has no clue what they are on about and introduce these rediculous ideas. I can only say that if they want to be strict about rules you should be strict in interpreting them. Just get a quadrupod and you can use it anywhere you like.

They are not worried about track erosion due to tripods. They are worried about a large groups of people (part of a workshop), stopping in the middle of a trail and setting up their tripod to take pictures. A trail is not wide enough to have a large group standing together and setting up their tripods. So the implication is that in such a scenario the participants in the group will setup their equipment off the trail, on the sides trampling the plants and causing other damage. The other issue is that it will block other people on the trail.

Both of these seem very valid concerns. It makes sense that this should not be allowed on the trail itself and only in areas where you have clearing off the trail for a group to stand and setup their equipment.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

WongFeiHong: So the guy who posted this shot is also part of destroying the iconic tree and telling others not to follow suit, is this new level of stupidity.

@Roland Karlsson: As Tronhar said, it depends on whether the guy on the tree and the photographer are connected. If they are connected, then the photographer is indeed responsible for the damage. However we cant tell from this picture if thats the case or not

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 07:15 UTC
In reply to:

WongFeiHong: So the guy who posted this shot is also part of destroying the iconic tree and telling others not to follow suit, is this new level of stupidity.

@Ranger Danger: I understand remote shutters and self-timers. However given the setting it seems quite unlikely that it is the photographer himself who first setup the shot and then made his way across the lake to get to the tree and be in the frame. It is much more likely that the guy on the tree is someone else.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

WongFeiHong: So the guy who posted this shot is also part of destroying the iconic tree and telling others not to follow suit, is this new level of stupidity.

Clearly the guy on the tree can't be the guy taking the shot. So what makes you say that the guy taking the shot damaged the tree?

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: Not a lens engineer....but it seems like the optical quality of these would be WAY worse than a traditional multi-element glass lens.

Maybe the low mass and thickness, combined with rapid computational processing, opens up new possibilities though. I could imagine a solution where these tiny lenses are very rapidly shifted to project the image onto the sensor from slightly different angles, while the sensor captures dozens or hundreds of impressions in a fraction of a second, which are then merged into a high quality photo. Kind of like the sensor-shift technology for adding resolution, but shifting the lens instead.

And why can't you not use a multi-element structure consisting of multiple of these mata-lenses?

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 03:07 UTC
In reply to:

Blaklynx01: "Sure, these flat lenses are 100,000x thinner than glass,..."

What does this mean? Glass can be varying thickness. 100,000x thinner than 1.0mm glass or 100,000x thinner than 20mm glass?

Anybody?

I would assumed they are comparing the thickness of glass needed to focus light to a certain distance vs the thickness of meta-lens needed to focus the light to the same distance.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 03:05 UTC
In reply to:

dansclic: There are maybe other explanations to consider re Sony : try Sony stuff before buying it, renting it because buying is too expensive, etc...
nikon being cheaper, there is no need or less need to hire it.

This doesn't really make any sense. Nikon D5 is $6500 whereas Sony A9 is $4500. Nikon D850 is $3300, Sony A7r III is $3200. D810 is $2800, A7r II is $2400. Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is $2400, Sony 24-70mm f2.8 is $2200. Sony is cheaper than Nikon in some cases, and about the same in other cases. In fact the only Nikon camera which made it to the list is D750 which is one of the cheaper Nikon FF bodies.

The more likely explanation is a lot of the renters are video people - an area where Nikon doesn't excel whereas Canon and Sony have an edge there.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 21:39 UTC

Looking at the list it seems the rentals are dominated by video users. That's why we see a7s II on top instead of other Sony full frames such as A7rII, and similarly we see GH5 as the top rental in 'new gear'. That would also explain why there are so few Nikon rentals since Nikon is clearly behind Canon and Sony when it comes to video.

So I would be cautious in drawing too many conclusions from this list. It is likely more a reflection of video industry rather than the photography industry.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 19:57 UTC as 40th comment
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 (406 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 42nd comment
Total: 276, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »