tim_b

Joined on May 2, 2011

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Nuno Saldanha: It will cost like what? $2800? Like the D810? Or it will be something insane like the D810A?

I would reckon that too and would love to see the price under $3000.
But I'm affraid and pretty sure they won't place it there... I mean, the D750 was $2299 Body only at the time of release...
D800 was roughly $3000, D800E $3300, D810 $3300...
Sony A7R II and Canon 5D Mark IV were placed well over $3000, alsmost hitting the $4000 or exceeding it in case of Sony A9...

So placing the D850 slighty below $3000 is unlikely I guess. But I am sure it would bring (back) quite a few photographers to Nikon. Thats for sure! So wouldn't it be a very skilful decision to ask less than $3000 for the D850, Nikon? :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

Nuno Saldanha: It will cost like what? $2800? Like the D810? Or it will be something insane like the D810A?

If the rumors about the hybrid EVF / OVF will turn out true, I see no reason why Nikon would charge less than for a D810A at its release.
This feature alone would make it absolutely unique in its way.
If the D850's sensor combines all the good things of the D810, A7Rii and Canon 5DsR sensors and won't have stars for dinner, I see even less reason to place it below $ 3,000. The D850 would be the ultimate object of desire.....
I wish it would cost below $3,000 so bad though...

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 09:20 UTC

Looking at the test shots at 0EV...

The Canon shots look somehow sharper or more contrasty.

Does Canon apply more sharpness or contrast by standard?
2 more Megapixels cannot be the reason I guess.
Is the Canon lens which was used optically superior to the Nikon lens used for the test?

Just look at the little coloring tubes, the text on it and the caps.

Interestingly, if you look at the pencil drawing next to the portraits on the left side of the image, the Nikon reveals the vertical lines on the wall a lot better (e.g. above the door frame). no vertical lines visible there on the canon image. But the Canon seems to be able to reveal vertical and skewd lines better as can be seen on the drawing as well....

I am confused. Enough pixel peeping for today...

I am diappointed by 6D II's DR, kind of pleased by its detail resolving abilities but asking myself if its not just due to adding more contrast / sharpnes by default...

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 11:10 UTC as 272nd comment
In reply to:

Vermeero: I found myself comparing shadow noise shot with the 6D mkII at +3 or +4 EV with the Canon EOS 5D.

... and I am really considering to go for a like new 6D under 1K USD or if I can find one an old 5D II or even 5D. I guess the 6D II is not going to decrease resell values of the former 6D / 5D models ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 08:28 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: You really have to wonder why an $8,000 camera requires bug fixes so soon after introduction. Was this camera hastily rushed to market, and not thoroughly tested prior to introduction?

I can understand getting new features via firmware, but any new camera that costs this much should be bug free.

the hubble telescope did cost about US$4.7 billion by the time of its launch and it was not bug free ;-)

but to be honest it was not a software bug...

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 10:48 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-A3 added to studio scene comparison (105 comments in total)

Strange thing...
Please compare the X-A3 to X-Pro2 or X-T2!
You'll see the X-A3 is sharper on the left side of the image and X-Pro2 or X-T2 are sharper on the right side of the image (compared at base ISO 200 and 1600, both JPEG and RAW)...

x-a3 vs x-pro2 - low right:
https://ibb.co/fqMMca
x-a3 vs x-pro2 - top left:
https://ibb.co/fk3pVv

You can see it clearly if you look at both brushes and the color tubes in the upper left and lower left corners of the test scene...

Are these lens centering issues or slightly different camera alignments to the test scene (I also noticed the new peacock feather)?

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 13:25 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-A3 added to studio scene comparison (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artem Holstov: looks just marginally worse than the x-trans

Here is the sample showing the issue I posted two posts above:
x-a3 vs x-pro2 - low right:
https://ibb.co/fqMMca
x-a3 vs x-pro2 - top left:
https://ibb.co/fk3pVv

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 13:15 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-A3 added to studio scene comparison (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artem Holstov: looks just marginally worse than the x-trans

Strange thing going on here...Maybe no one needs to get their eyes checked.

Please compare the X-A3 to X-Pro2 or X-T2!
Then you'll see the X-A3 is sharper on the left side of the image and X-Pro2 or X-T2 are sharper on the right side of the image (compared at base ISO 200 and 1600, both JPEG and RAW)...

You can see it clearly if you look at both brushes and the color tubes in the upper left and lower left corner of the test scene...

Lens centering issues? Or camera alignment to the test scene?

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 12:26 UTC

why no tethering for the X-Pro2.....?

Link | Posted on May 29, 2017 at 12:20 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Mssimo: What kind of tripod are they using?

The Seaport MegaMast
:-D

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D40 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

EwanMC: Now the Canon 40D, that's a camera worth remembering!

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d

I loved my 40D so much- it was my first and only DSLR before I moved to mirrorless...

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

tim_b: I want it but its too expensive

For 1400 USD or a bit less after minor price drops I'd be in ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

tim_b: I want it but its too expensive

I'm from Europe. We would have to pay around 1900 $

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 20:17 UTC

I want it but its too expensive

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 13:21 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

villagranvicent: what's the point of his collection? Does he have some historical pieces of photographic equipment or simply buys whatever crap he finds at the local flea market?

...as if he would need a point... ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 08:03 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2485 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike FL: A6000 is sharper than X-PR02 while both lens are in the very much same price range and same FL.

Look and try to read all the text:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a6000&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro2&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr171_1=off&normalization=full&widget=99&x=-0.44080672164242946&y=-0.702912468175104

Thanks David. Gonna keep that in mind.
I find RT very confusing. So I'm not sure if I'll be using it much...
Would love to try Iridient but I'd need a Mac or hack first...
But you're right, let's not start another converter talk here.
Have a good night
Tim

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2016 at 22:36 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2485 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike FL: A6000 is sharper than X-PR02 while both lens are in the very much same price range and same FL.

Look and try to read all the text:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a6000&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro2&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr171_1=off&normalization=full&widget=99&x=-0.44080672164242946&y=-0.702912468175104

A6000 is only sharper in dpreview's ACR outputs. If you use e.g. Raw Therapee as Raw Editor you will get quite different results in which the X-Pro2 is on par with the A6000 concerning sharpness. (love both cameras so please no bashing)

For those interested, I made a quick test with the dpreview files:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57610100

Currently I am also testing the X-Pro2 against my old X-Pro1 with raw therapee. It is really, really hard to see any differences in image "sharpness". I am impressed with what my old X-Pro1 can do. Thinking of returning the X-Pro2....

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2016 at 16:55 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2162 comments in total)
In reply to:

ruicarv79: If only Sony could make cameras as good looking as Fuji... :)

that's the point @ruicarv79 ... never underestimate the importance of pleasure in grabbing, holding, looking at and of course shooting your camera which all adds to the experience...

This is what Fuji cameras embody to me and what I am missing in Sony cameras...(thinking of getting a used A7r though...)

I prefer a camera which I love to take and hold in my hands anytime over a feature-packed camera that can do absolutely everything I possibly want to but does not deliver the same shooting experience ...

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

whatta: In general I wonder why a dedicated camera is not better in almost all aspects than a phone.

https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
1080p 60 fps
720p 240 fps

10fps still (without autofocus)

timelapse and gsp as already mentioned.

these are missing from these canons.

I also wonder why both are not capable of recording 1080/60fps ...
..and there are quite some successful pros only shooting with a phone ;-)

Link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 09:38 UTC
In reply to:

Kurt_K: Interesting interview. I think I would seriously consider a Fuji if it wasn't for the X-trans sensor. I see people on here who say that the smudgy looking files are down to poor conversions through Lightroom but, honestly, the files I've seen from Capture One conversions don't look any better.

Kurt_K, have you seen x trans raw file conversions of iridient developer? How would you rate them?

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 08:48 UTC
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »