Northgrove

Joined on Nov 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tinternaut: Looking at the results from this camera, a lot boils down to which kidney to sell. A medium format camera that also produces great OOC* JPEGs. What's not to like?

* And yes, they are a little flat. That's what the levels layer was made for.

I think flat photos is a good thing, just shows that it's capturing a high dynamic range even in JPEG's. Also way better results if you want to add contrast in post than remove it. Flat photos have an abundance of information in the photo, contrasty ones a lack of it.

I'm slowly migrating to Pro Neg Std/Hi on my X-T1 except for rich, colorful sunsets or greenery where I use Astia. I think that preserves the most information in the JPEG's and produces the most natural photos.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Permit: How are the photos any better than down-rezing photos from a top end smartphone like the google pixel? A smartphone has a larger sensor than the casio, so it will capture more light. By averaging the reading from a 3x3 square of pixels, the group of pixels would act as one "large" pixel. Same resolution as the casio and same amount of noise per "pixel". Of course you can use smarter noise reduction algorithms and achieve even better results.

Downsizing smartphone photos will improve low light performance, depending on the definition of "low light performance".

If it's defined as "noise levels in photos" it will get reduced because a reduced resolution hides noise. It is the same concept as pixel binning on a sensor, only applied in post instead. If it's defined as "blurry photos because too long exposure times", it won't help as much because that won't happen on an as granular level.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 09:51 UTC
On a photo in the Sony Cybershot DSC RX100 III samples gallery sample gallery (4 comments in total)

Pretty decent bokeh after all, despite not an obnoxious distance + zoom on the subject in what I suppose is 70mm FF equivalent. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:32 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Sony Cybershot DSC RX100 III samples gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Not too disturbing noise even at ISO 8000 and no noise reduction. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:25 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Sony Cybershot DSC RX100 III samples gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

1" sensors have come a long way! If you don't care too much for bokeh other than in tele or macro, there seems to be a lot of picturesque photos to gain here in one convenient and flexible package. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:22 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Sony Cybershot DSC RX100 III samples gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

abolit: dynamic range is ZERO!

Seems like its JPEG engine is really harsh on the highlights. A world of a difference with RAW's. Honestly, I think the difference is TOO great even despite comparing against RAW's. I think their JPEG engine doesn't seem quite up to par.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
On a photo in the Sony Cybershot DSC RX100 III samples gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Wow. HUGE difference in dynamic range over the JPEG version! Sure, it's from a RAW, but still... It's as if it isn't even from the same sensor. :P I wish their JPEG engine was a little bit softer on the shadows and highlights.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:17 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

BleugrassBoy: I bought the app and have been playing around with it. It's fine - nothing wrong with it. But there's also nothing in it that I don't already have in other apps (Snapseed, Waterlogue, VSCO Cam, Camera+, Analog, etc.) If you don't already have a stable full of photo apps go ahead and buy this one. But if you do already have a bevy of these apps, I haven't found any great new functionality with this one.

I see what you're saying. For me, it was the other way though. It kind of goes in both directions, so I replaced a set of apps with this one. But sure, if you're comfortable with others I can see how you'd better stick with those.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

Danny: Apart from color correction, how far do you want to go with editing on a smartphone screen?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I've used this for a short while and could easily see how it would improve one's "iphoneography". It sounds like this isn't something you'd enjoy much, relegating an iPhone to quick snapshots only, but don't diss those who do just because of that. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 21:45 UTC

I like it! Especially that it doesn't fall into the filter trap of _only_ offering filters just because it does. It especially leaves me with lots of room for fine tuning and even localized adjustments, and graduated filter effects. Combined with the tools for photo collages etc., it replaced 2-3 of my apps. I think I'll stick with this one for a while. I really like the versatility. It feels mature despite being in the first version.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 21:43 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Imaging Technician: I bought the A7 when it came out. It's nice to see the system evolve. But to take pictures with a ILC you need lenses. And Sony, unlike Fujifilm, does not seem to understand this at all.

Give me reasonably fast primes to a descent price. The 35mm 2.8 is too slow and the 35mm 1.4 on their roadmap is too big. How about a 35mm 2.0?

I'd venture to guess that the 35mm 1.4 is "too big" compared to for example a Fuji X lens because this is full frame lenses.

This is also why I went for X-T1 instead. I don't just value size and weight of camera bodies.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Jarda_Houdek: Interesting, finally some competition for Lumia 1020.
Still, Lumia beats Lumix:
Lumia may have a smaller sensor, but with stabilization and brighter lens. Also Lumia supports RAW, which is not yet supported in Android. And Lumia has Xenon flash. Can't see how this devide could win against Lumia.

Hm, I think the minor difference in maximum aperture (f/2.2 vs f/2.8) is more than offset by the 50% larger sensor. Android L, expected "late 2014", will finally offer RAW support. :)

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 09:31 UTC
On article Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Looks ok, but, why get this over an RX100?

The handling is completely different, like night and day. Of course, at the cost of RX100's pocketability. But that's one example of how different needs may have a photographer pick another camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2014 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Fenske: Does this mean the image stabilization is significantly improved for still photos too — IS being the RX100's achilles heel, a commenter rightly called it — since almost all shots taken will be without a tripod?

"The camera also has Intelligent Active Mode – another first for Cyber-shot RX series cameras – which utilizes Sony’s frame analysis technology and 5-axis compensation to dramatically reduce the effects of camera shake while shooting movies."

Since the lens is much brighter on the tele end now (1,5 stops!), this alone will signficantly affect stability without even improving any algorithms.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 09:30 UTC

The small aperture on the tele end was the one weakness of that lens before, now that was effectively eradicated. Impressive! The EVF is a major bonus on top of that. I think this is a greater leap forward than the MK1 -> MK2 was.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 09:27 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-T1 Review (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

berbmit: An amateur's experience constrained by a price-point:

After my D5100 and all lens was stolen I had the chance for a clean start. The X-T1 became the replacement kit; body and three lens graciously payed for by insurance. It was a hard call to move away from the familiar Nikon range, but after a week I'm convinced that I have a whole lot more camera for the replacement price than I could have got with a Nikon!

In particular, I am amazed at the improved quality (subjectively speaking) compared to my old Nikon RAW (using Lightzone/DCRAW under Linux) ... the difference is immediate to my eye.

The handling is really nice; more compact without feeling too small, solid to hold, great build quality. The EVF in low light was a surprise ... as if I was using night vision goggles ... fantastic for composing a low light image.

I'm still getting used to the idea I bought non-Nikon, at this point I am having no buyer regrets and would not trade back to a Nikon price-parity equivalent.

So are we comparing entry level DSLR's with advanced level mirrorless cameras now? The two have so many differences I wouldn't even know where to start, ranging from handling and weight to features.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:57 UTC
Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »