Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on Jun 23, 2015


Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1490 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcMedios: The XT4 would have been a great opportunity to break away from slavish SLR-like design. There is no need for the pentaprism because there is no mirror. There is an EVF which can be placed anywhere. The controls are electronic and can be placed anywhere. Yet, camera designers continue to imitate designs from the past... designs that were already full of compromises due to the technology of 60 years ago.

Or get an X-E3. But indeed, Photography can be Retrography, it seems. But the X-T4 looks like a wonderful camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 22:09 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1490 comments in total)
In reply to:

ORiL: It could be nice if ...
Fuji will let users update the film simulation parameters offline and update them into the camera.
I mean create a pool of parameters that can be chosen on you PC, see the affect on a selected photo on the PC, and load the result configuration to the camera.
This could open the possibility to share these presets between community members.. 📷

Look for the HaldCLUT lookup tables for RawTherapee. They do pretty nice conversions.
And settings that transform an image are trivially converted into a profile.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 22:04 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1490 comments in total)

Seems Fuji gets the details right, with the joystick, separate video and stills menus and modes, 10 bit video, selectable crop, and digital stabilization...

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 21:50 UTC as 154th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1490 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Fat Fish: Loving the new Screen, IBIS and new video features. Such a shame about X-Trans.

You could try RawTherapee for the processing. Or th erather newer and easier-to-learn ART variant of it. Free (open source) and pretty good, both of them.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

gaul: Sadly, tried both free alternatives to commercial RAW converters and could not make it work easily and quickly

Btw DT and RT, unsure which one had install issue or which interface was most cumbersome, but I soon uninstalled them. Not enough time on my hand.

In comparison, the commercial packages are easier to start with.

Will give it another go as I connect to a local photo club which chose to use one of these 2 free RAW converters for all workshops / lessons so all members use the same tool and benefit from each other’s experience

I tried both RT and DT after not having edited pictures digitally apart from the occasional retouching since some 20 years (really).
In any case, I started with DT - it has the cool stories, the hyped features, GPU acceleration, the profiled denoise and so on. It felt so-so to me. I think it was DT that wrote a sidecar file next to any image that I viewed, which made me try RT.
RT was so much easier to use. Pictures just loaded with a correct profile and lens correction applied. A few tabs with fairly simple groups. Too many options, but I knew image (and signal) processing. The denoise "just worked perfectly" in auto mode - no funny profiles.
So, RT is is for me.
(Note that some developers work on both - each program has their own strengths and development direction.)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2019 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

Sannaborjeson: There is no such thing as a free lunch

I think RT used to be commercial software, and the owner decided to take his child public and attract more developers by making it open.
I like what RT does and I like its performance on an older computer as well.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2019 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

janbanan: Anyone now if there is any other RAW- for negative scans/film?

A simple inversion will make the negative look OK-ish, but there is a lot of work to get the colors just right. The negative tool makes that easier.
(In RawTherapee it is quite easy to invert an image - for example using the curves tool).

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2019 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

S I: Pretty sure I read a paper by Microsoft research on something similar half a decade ago, just without "AI". Guess its finally moved from theoretical to runnable on a cell phone.

I remember this from way before digital camera. Superresolution from a video digitizer. One that worked from a parallel port and took seconds to digitize a single still frame.
It could be processed these days from camera shots in burst mode using a suitable processor.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2018 at 08:12 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T100 review (351 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kharan: Look at that horrendous sample reel. That's why you don't market a camera as 4K-capable when it does 15 FPS - the footage is unusable.
If I could do it, I'd force all the geniuses who argued that "no one would notice the difference" and that "you are moaning just because" to watch a feature-length movie shot on X-T100's exclusively. Maybe then they'd learn :/
EDIT: Ack, there's worms in a foliage sample! Apparently, Fuji's JPEG processing can't handle Bayer, either.

Perhaps worms show fromnot having an AA filter? Foliage has high frequencies; moire may be the result.
I want an AA filter. Always.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2018 at 21:52 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Casio QV-4000 (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: My first 'real' digital camera was the Casio QV-3000. It was what convinced me that digital had real potential.

I still have my QV-3000. I should try it again. The pictures were not half bad at 3 MP.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: They are one of the few companies making money with their phone business besides apple and samsung.

Phones are turning into commodities with a fashion element to them.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

davidkachel: Well of course camera sales have dropped, you clueless twits! You decided to abandon a large segment of your users, forcing them to invest large gobs of cash in somebody else's camera system.
Instead of giving me an upgraded sensor version of my a900, you forced me to switch over to Nikon at no small expense, because you decided I should no longer have the option of an optical viewfinder.
You may think a digital viewfinder is a great new gadget but people who actually use their cameras for more than vacation pictures need glass!
I sold every scrap of Sony equipment I owned to help pay for the Nikon D810 and a gaggle of lenses. Better equipment and Nikon wouldn't be stupid enough to cut me off at the knees!
Lesson learned, though. I will NEVER buy another Sony product because now I know that Sony has no problem turning whatever it is into useless landfill, on a whim.

I watch with one eye on the viewfinder and the other eye watches the whole scene if I need to be fast.
And EVFs exists in huge different styles and sizes. I think the one of the A6000 is acceptable, but I looked at some Panasonic bridge camera color sequential one, it was also tiny, that was annoying at first sight.
And flashing? Slapping mirrors flash.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 06:34 UTC
On photo maximum-retail in the Lost In Translation challenge (2 comments in total)

True, some countries have a maximum retail price set by the manufacturer. For example on a can of cola.

In the west, usually there is a minimum retail price. Not communicated, but enforced by stopping delivery or so.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 10:12 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

ImageAmateur: Interesting to see what Nikon's mirrorless next year will be like. If it does come.

50 years ago? Those people are pensioners now.
Regular PC flash? Of course. But you don't want TTL metering?
AA batteries.. oh yes, you were joking. Oh yes, you forgot IBIS.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Brian Smith is a Sony spokesman, but I find it amusing that universality of E is news to anyone. Us legacy lens users first got excited when 4/3 DSLRs came out, because they could accept old mounts like Minolta SR/MC/MD. Still, 4/3 was a different aspect ratio and heavy crop, and manual focus wasn't easy. When the NEX-5 came out, it was instantly a qualitatively better mount for old lenses, missing only on the crop. The A7 removed that last concern and the A7II added the dream of FF IBIS on all old lenses. It's just a matter of time until ALL old lenses work as native on E-mount bodies.

However, only OLD lenses -- not new lenses made for OTHER MIRRORLESS mounts. For example, EOS-M has the same flange distance as Sony E with a wider flange, so no EOS-M lenses can mount on E. Ok, there are virtually no EOS-M lenses... but there could be. Wouldn't it be nice if cameras all agreed on one mount? Well, that's almost happened before with M42 and micro4/3, but not quite. Oh well.

Really a pity. A clever lens manufacturer would want to go for a larg eflange focal distance. A clever camera manufacturer for a small one. But they are one and the same...

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Yes, it is nice to be able to use old lenses. The shorter registration distance plus the avilability of adapters make e.g. a FF Sony mirrorlless camera able to use almost all lenses on the market. So, in a sense, it is right.

But, you lose some.


You lose auto focus and automatic closing of aperture. Sure, as it has an EVF, you can work with the lens aperture closed. Sure, with focus peeking you will make manual focusing easier. I have never use the Sony focus peeking, but I have a hard time using my Pentax focus peeking though. It is quite hard to get that exact focusing. It seems sharp almost everywhere.


The EVF usually works fine. The aperture is always closed (just as it is on native lenses, actually). The peaking is okay, and you can map EVF zoom to a button for accurate manual focus. OK, it is not auto focus. But if you have the time there is NO problem at all.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 19:03 UTC
On article Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Why am I not surprised? Classic example of Chinese "business strategy"... steal - - produce some shitty copy - make profit.

Well... what is called stealing now was not before. Ever increasing power of corporations. Oh we have something that makes money that must be 'protected'. So more 'ownership' not only for brand names and patents, but also business plans, pricing schemes, end to freedom of employment, user interfaces, and even human rights for corporations.

TL;DR: That the Canon brand name is on there is bad. That is is a functional copy is good.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 07:33 UTC
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17