richard stone

Lives in United States San Mateo, CA, United States
Works as a Attorney
Joined on Mar 11, 2005


Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20

Well, I wish it was effective, meaning that it would make a competitive image, relative to current digital cameras. But it isn't, and it doesn't, and that's just wasted effort. Sadly.

I have a Contax G2, and a Canon A1, both very nice image makers, and supported, but if the final image isn't the same quality as either current digital OR from the film available, why bother? An image of a focusing screen seems like a clever idea, except it ends up with a tiny blurry image. Sadly.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 06:59 UTC as 45th comment
On article A letter from the Publisher (332 comments in total)
In reply to:

n3eg: "...countless blogs offer up half-baked opinions on new products within minutes of their launch..."

Way to slam your readers, guys.

Lots of people quickly post their half-baked "tests" of things on this site, but that's the nature of the "Forum" approach, and it has little to do with the initial article. DPR can only control certain things, and it would probably lose something if it tries to be too heavy on the moderation of comments and posts. I too am occasionally dismayed at some of the extreme contentions and feelings expressed by posters, but that is problem of extreme views just the nature of people in general, and is not encouraged by DP Review, as I see it. Meanwhile, yes, the desire to "scientific" testing is to be applauded. Occasionally sometimes even the half-baked posts contribute something worthwhile too.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 05:07 UTC

I guess I'm mystified by all the negativity. If you hate the idea and the company and the video...then don't buy one. Stay with what you know and love. It's a small risk they are asking people to take. If you can't afford that risk, or have no interest? Does that mean everyone should think and feel like you?

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 01:52 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Ayoh: $1700 for a 35mm f2.0 equivalent lens? Seems excessive

Yes, but: It's a medium format lens, for a camera and system for "professional" use. (Low volumes in terms of sales and high quality = high price...) If you think the price is too high you need to buy something else as a 35MM equiv. camera and lens combination. I'm sure the lens and the system are superb in actual use. I have a Fuji MF film camera, and it is outstanding. Doesn't get used now.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 06:28 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

worldcup1982: Very fair review, thanks...

The idea with SPP is to do as much as you want in that program, do it with reasonable speed, and get to a tif of jpg file. My feeling at this point is that the Q files from SPP do not need a lot of additional work. So unless the issue is doing a whole lot of files on one sitting SPP is not that much of a burden. The most recent SPP is, I am told, a lot faster than prior versions. I have been using SPP 6.5.3 and it seems to work at a reasonable speed.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 03:02 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (645 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dougbm_2: No mention if the viewfinder's placement to the center right is comfortable - especially for left eye shooters.

The viewfinder issue is a non-issue. You don't even notice where it is, you just use it. Meanwhile, for me, the SDQ images are great.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 02:57 UTC
In reply to:

Infared: If this was a Canon EF mount I would buy one as I would have 12 lenses to hook up to it. They would sell like hot cakes! ....:-(

I have a Canon 50mm 1.4 EF adapted to fit the SA (Sigma) mount. Worked great for ten years until the motor went out. Now awaiting repair. It's not a difficult conversion.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Why has DP Review never done a product review on the SD Quattro? The camera has been on the market long enough to justify a review. While at least some of the images shown are interesting enough to stimulate some interest, wouldn't a review of this very different camera be justified?

I bought an SD10, years ago, and still have it, and the reason I bought it was that after I looked at the images I realized that the only way I was going to get images like that was to have an SD10. And it was some work to use SPP. But the images are worth it.

Before the SD10 I mainly shot MF, and I was accustomed to a max ISO of 400. Also, really, the details from the Sigma are great BUT: the color is excellent too, particularly in the Q and Q-H. Recent users in the Sigma forum are showing images with good detail at ISO 800 and decent at 1600. But really, if you really want image quality the only thing you get at ISO above 800 (from any camera) are "usable" images, not the very best IQ.

Reviewers tend to be hard on the Sigma cameras precisely because they are different, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you want every camera to be the same.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
On article HTC announces U Ultra 5.7" phablet with 12MP camera (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: These companies are ganging up as they try to.take away standasrd features, Jack, removable battery, sd card. Let's stop this and boycott such products.

DualSystemguy: Thanks for your excellent reply. I don't know what to make of all the negative responses on almost any "news" post regarding new products, as if all the posters were grumpy old men. (Maybe they all really are grumpy old men?)

I don't know about the camera specs, because it seems to me that if you want really superb images you should be using a true camera. Most cameras in phones do their job just fine.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 03:54 UTC

Actually, I liked the look of the bag. Nice color in the one shown. The idea is, as I see it, that when you need easy access to the stuff inside you use the sling concept. If taking a long walk, the backpack. And maybe for papers and computer to a meeting, the briefcase.

I fail to understand all the whining and contempt for nice looking materials, as if we were all traveling all the time to back streets and surrounded by thieves and drug addicts. And if you plan on doing a full-blown wedding album, maybe this isn't the bag for you?

Or all we all real men, who need a black cheap-looking bag? a tool bag? Afraid of looking like you have money? What's all this contempt for people who like nice looking things?

And I'm sorry, but being a pro photographer is not the most manly work in the world. Not even close. Certainly not the most profitable work. If you are an amateur, with a camera mostly as man jewelry, what could possibly be the excuse for all the rude remarks?

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2016 at 02:53 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: The medium format look, lol! Nice camera, I'm sure, but not a single one of you could tell it from a 36-54MP pic.

Yes, that is the point of MF, in my view. Sure, you get more detail, etc., but the real difference is the smooth look and (better) color gradation. It's obvious on film comparisons of 35mm to 645 and to the much larger (6x7) Mamiya 7 II images. As noted by LWW, above, the recent Q series of Sigma cameras is some competition for the newer digital cameras. I too am troubled by the Hasselblad's relatively modest increase in sensor size beyond FF. The thing is, I expect better looking images from the Hasselblad, although the posted images are good, and better than FF digital.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
On article A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

JMichaelsPhoto: I'm sorry, but if you're a nikon person, buying a [comparatively] slow lens with rack and pinion focusing that uses drop-in aperture disks for $699 (the cost of the black petzval) because it's lent from an older and optically inferior design all for the purpose of doofy bokeh, when a used Nikkor 85 1.4D can be found in good condition for about the same price that is superior in almost every aspect, is effing ridiculous. Again, I'm sorry. This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Especially considering, if doofy bokeh and a small area of center-sharpness is what you're into, the edge 80 optic with a lensbaby is available for $500. At least the edge 80 is sharp.

Some people don't get it. There is no way to convince them, and it's not worth the effort of trying.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2016 at 09:05 UTC
On article A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

JD Thomas: Thanks for your great responses to the various wildly foolish negative posts. I personally do not need or want the swirly bokeh portrait lens, at least not right now, but I'm glad someone is making it and that some other people are enjoying it. And it probably does cost more than it "should" (or might, in some ideal world that does not exist) because they are not making many thousands or millions of them.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2016 at 09:03 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Hands-on with new Sigma SD cameras and lenses (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

mas54: I see lenses only for other cameras, not their own. Are there actually lenses for these new cameras?

Ignorance is bliss.

Sigma makes some superb lenses, and many very good ones.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Hands-on with new Sigma SD cameras and lenses (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bueche: Design is clearly not one of Sigma's strengths.

I think it is a great looking camera. Not sure what your issue is.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 13:18 UTC
In reply to:

Kevin Purcell: The Sigma claim that the three layers are blue, green and red is just not true. It's marketing BS along with the 39MPx claim.

The probablility of a photon being absorbed in the top layer is highest for the blue, next most light for greenish and least likely for the red but all three do get some absortion in that layer. It's a desaturated bluish cyan.

In the middle layer a lot of the blue has been filtered (but not all) so that middle layer is a desaturated greenish yellow (some blue, some red and mostly green). The bottom layer is orangish red (mostly red, a little green and a very little blue).

To get to real RGB primaries you have to stick these (noisy) signal though a color matrix to remove the crosstalk between the colors (giving even noisier RGB signal out).

This is the major reason for Foeveon sensors poor high ISO performance (noise goes up quicker than you'd expect) and poor color fidelity (because your original primaries aren't very good).

Wow, not even on the market and already dismissed by The Experts. Although I hate to be self-referential, I feel I know what I am talking about... As I have posted elsewhere, "The Issue" here is how well it works, both in the hand and in terms of images. Sigma has been reasonably forthright, I believe, and as I have said elsewhere, in its recent comparisons to Bayer MP sensor counts, so when it says "39 MP" equivalent, suppose that is true? That would be pretty good in a small camera. Indeed, in any camera. And I have friends that know cameras, so I must know.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

Minolta4Life: Take a review for what it's worth. Most of my reviews are not from using the product, but reviewing the specs, and/or appearance of an item if I'm dumbfounded by its looks (like that ugly Hasselblad makeover of the Sony Nex). I think most people fall in this category, being most of us don't have the means to test each camera that is pushed to market. I feel i am pretty camera savy. I shot Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Sony and Sigma over the years. I can pretty well determine the rain from the pee on my leg. Stop peeing on my leg, and I will give you rave reviews, i.e. Sony RX100II (all i ever want was a hotshoe), and Olympus OM-D (that would be my pretty wife that was also a freak in the bed). Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, stop giving us new nomenclature with meaningless upgrades.

tomface? What's your problem with that? You mean you actually want people to use a product before writing a review? Don't you think that's too much work and too hard? How about if someone just handled it in a store? Why isn't that enough? Maybe two minutes of fondling is all that is needed? But why even require that much? We all know how good a camera just by the name and specs anyway. Why let facts get in the way of our opinions?

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2013 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

ZhanMInG12: No macro ability at this focal range? Making it to 0.5x wouldn't really hurt, right?

Yes. This is a traditional approach, and not a bad one. I still have the Contax G2 and lenses. As for distance scale? What's all the whining about?

Link | Posted on May 5, 2013 at 00:43 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview (277 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixel_peeper: There's no bite to any of the pictures I have seen from the XPro-1, with the same random-array sensor as the X-E1s. They all look as if they've been shot at f22. I put it down to the sensor, which appears to give significantly inferior resolution to equivalent Bayer-array cameras.

There are few if any cameras that can do better than the DP2M, in both sharpness and color, and the Fuji cannot, at base ISO and possibly up to ISO400. From what I have seen ISOs above 400 are functional, but not excellent. The DP2M images are astounding., but sharpening has to be done gently. The DP2M is simply not as versatile as the new Fuji. The lens on the DP2M is also excellent. I am in the market for a new single camera, and it is an interesting time.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2012 at 23:06 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)

Years ago, when I bought my Contax G2, there were innumerable posts about the superiority of the Leica by folks who had never used the G2 and didn't much like or trust auto-focus, and who truly believed that all things Leica were better than anything Contax.

My Fiji GA645 is a superb and fun MF camera, with an excellent lens.

It is completely misguided to even suggest that somehow Fuji doesn't know how to make excellent cameras and lenses, or that Fuji FILM doesn't know sharpness and colors, just as much as Leica, Hasselblad, Schneider, not to mention Canon and Nikon, etc.

The Fuji reminds me a lot of the Contax G2, in terms of size and shape and appearance, and innovation. The jpg images seem superb. I assume that after a while the RAW processing techniques will catch up to the sensor output.

For people who want to focus manually, it seems clear that the XPro is designed mainly to be used on AF. So if you are "Old School' maybe new isn't for you.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2012 at 02:19 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20