SiliconVoid

SiliconVoid

Lives in United States AK, United States
Joined on Mar 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1984 comments in total)
In reply to:

HenryDJP: "Limited video performance relative to mirrorless peers"

I think DPR is grasping at straws here. It's pointless to compare the video performance of the D810 to a mirrorless camera. Why not compare it to a DSLR.....after all it IS a DSLR, not a mirrorless camera. Most likely because Canon's 5DSR sucks at video in comparison to the D810, and DPR favors Canon. Not surprising as it took DPR 2 years to review the D810 since it was released. SMH.

Oh my.. Seriously..?
Hmm, this is difficult. I probably shouldn't respond at all as you obviously have no basis for your opposition other than a 'personal' misinformed techno-wow/feature bias of what a 'pro' camera is.. However at the same time it would be wrong to leave your comments out there tainting real tangible information.
-
'Just the fact that' (grammatically/contextually) means even if all other capabilities and features were equal the absence of two card slots would completely disqualify a camera as 'pro-level'.
By your criteria it must have been an ascendancy for those field, studio, and sideline professionals finally able to validate their equipment 'pro-ness' once they could upgrade from their prosumer D1, D2, D700, D200, D300, 1D, 1DS, 5D, 5DII bodies.. Finally, heads high, part of the 'pro-level' club finally able to thumb noses at those single-slotters out there..
-
Ironically, your closing 'argument' disqualifies the very camera of this review as 'pro-level' .. O.o

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 07:05 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1984 comments in total)
In reply to:

HenryDJP: "Limited video performance relative to mirrorless peers"

I think DPR is grasping at straws here. It's pointless to compare the video performance of the D810 to a mirrorless camera. Why not compare it to a DSLR.....after all it IS a DSLR, not a mirrorless camera. Most likely because Canon's 5DSR sucks at video in comparison to the D810, and DPR favors Canon. Not surprising as it took DPR 2 years to review the D810 since it was released. SMH.

While it may be an irrelevant comparison for those not interested in mirrorless, there are mirrorless bodies such as the Sony A7R (same sensor as the D810), newer A7RII, A7S and A7SII that easily classify as 'peers' (notably the Mark II bodies) so it would not be a pointless comparison.
Even had the review been done when the D810 first hit the shelves, there would have still been a valid peer comparison to the A7R and A7S which were already available at the time.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 21:53 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1984 comments in total)
In reply to:

StewartJameson: What does the "expeed 4" engine mean ?

"Expeed" is Nikon's component name for the CPU (processor) used to run the camera itself. It would essentially be the same as describing a computer as having the Intel i7 processor inside. The CPU handles operational communication between the AF system, metering system, etc in addition to crunching the numbers to process noise reduction, color profiles, jpg conversion, IO control (ports) and data storage, video codecs - basically just about everything the camera does in the process of producing an image.
The "4" refers to the generation of the Expeed processor.
(Sorry, clicked in the wrong place.. =) )
So in the "4" label tells us that the CPU used is newer and certainly faster than the previous "Expeed 3".

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 21:25 UTC

Could be the mind playing tricks - but these industry awards seem to carry more weight, have more significance when it's some other brand being recognized...

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2015 at 18:38 UTC as 8th comment
On article Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: Good photographer piece, especially the shot settings and requirements in a very prolific area of photography.

It would be great to see more articles from the photographers perspective (no offense to the editors of course, heh) on equipment and settings in these types of venues. Though I guess that would eventually result in an article or two where someone wasn't all that impressed by a Sonikon D8xx for sports - and we couldn't have that sort of thing on DPR.. =P

Kudos to Nikon in marketing though, they have generated quite a buzz over the 'new' Group Area AF mode. Whether through marketing material or user comments, statements like 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode {from the D4S}' does sound much better and newer than 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode in the D810 and D4S {from the D200}'. lol

heh.. I was speaking of Dynamic-area AF and Single-area AF (the modes that current gen bodies require pressing the little button inside the switch on the flange and then spinning the dial to cycle through (not AF-S and AF-C) versus one quick click on my D700 - but as you mentioned not changing modes very often your experience is probably not impacted much then..

..and what do you mean we can't have instant access to everything, heh, its only because if we ever did we might not want to upgrade.

I appreciate your candor and thank you for sharing your time.. =)

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 09:25 UTC
On article Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: Good photographer piece, especially the shot settings and requirements in a very prolific area of photography.

It would be great to see more articles from the photographers perspective (no offense to the editors of course, heh) on equipment and settings in these types of venues. Though I guess that would eventually result in an article or two where someone wasn't all that impressed by a Sonikon D8xx for sports - and we couldn't have that sort of thing on DPR.. =P

Kudos to Nikon in marketing though, they have generated quite a buzz over the 'new' Group Area AF mode. Whether through marketing material or user comments, statements like 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode {from the D4S}' does sound much better and newer than 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode in the D810 and D4S {from the D200}'. lol

As you mentioned using the D200 I assume you might have made your way through the D300/s, D700, D3/s over the years.. I toggle between Dynamic and Single on my D700 all the time, between shots sometimes, and if rumors pan out Nikon is supposed to be releasing a new FX 'Action' body this year. I doubt even in a new action oriented body they would revert back to putting the focus modes on the back of the body though.. In your experience with the current gen bodies (if you regularly use different modes) how would you rate the experience of having to button+dial modes in the field, on the run..?

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 08:58 UTC
On article Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: Good photographer piece, especially the shot settings and requirements in a very prolific area of photography.

It would be great to see more articles from the photographers perspective (no offense to the editors of course, heh) on equipment and settings in these types of venues. Though I guess that would eventually result in an article or two where someone wasn't all that impressed by a Sonikon D8xx for sports - and we couldn't have that sort of thing on DPR.. =P

Kudos to Nikon in marketing though, they have generated quite a buzz over the 'new' Group Area AF mode. Whether through marketing material or user comments, statements like 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode {from the D4S}' does sound much better and newer than 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode in the D810 and D4S {from the D200}'. lol

...and no offense intended, wasn't picking at you, I just think it is kind of humorous that Nikon is basically handcuffed to exclude its mention. As it wouldn't sound very new, nor high-tech, to say that in their new $6k+ body they incorporated an AF mode from a 2005 model.. =)

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 08:27 UTC
On article Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: Good photographer piece, especially the shot settings and requirements in a very prolific area of photography.

It would be great to see more articles from the photographers perspective (no offense to the editors of course, heh) on equipment and settings in these types of venues. Though I guess that would eventually result in an article or two where someone wasn't all that impressed by a Sonikon D8xx for sports - and we couldn't have that sort of thing on DPR.. =P

Kudos to Nikon in marketing though, they have generated quite a buzz over the 'new' Group Area AF mode. Whether through marketing material or user comments, statements like 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode {from the D4S}' does sound much better and newer than 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode in the D810 and D4S {from the D200}'. lol

It worked quite well considering the limitations of the 11-point AF.. You did not have anywhere near the placement options of course (5 total) which made it more like sliding Dynamic Area a little to the left or right..
It did allow you to narrow the array at the extremes (left and right) over Dynamic Area, useful for smaller subjects in the outer thirds.
It was actually better implemented on the Fuji S5 for some reason... O.o

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 08:06 UTC

Still not completely sure who the audience is for these images..
As adults we can quickly see the irony, and for many the triumphs over our own fears, to the extent that some move on to critique.

For children however, I am more than a little apprehensive that some might take away the validation in becoming a monster themselves through the imagery of terrorizing something/someone that is clearly afraid of them..

I personally would have chosen the visual of standing their ground, facing their adversary, prepared to vanquish their childhood imaginary fears.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 07:55 UTC as 5th comment
On article Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions (255 comments in total)

Good photographer piece, especially the shot settings and requirements in a very prolific area of photography.

It would be great to see more articles from the photographers perspective (no offense to the editors of course, heh) on equipment and settings in these types of venues. Though I guess that would eventually result in an article or two where someone wasn't all that impressed by a Sonikon D8xx for sports - and we couldn't have that sort of thing on DPR.. =P

Kudos to Nikon in marketing though, they have generated quite a buzz over the 'new' Group Area AF mode. Whether through marketing material or user comments, statements like 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode {from the D4S}' does sound much better and newer than 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode in the D810 and D4S {from the D200}'. lol

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 07:16 UTC as 43rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: We understand the disappointment that the A7S does not allow 4k recording to internal media, but it tarnishes DPRs image as a respected resource to not even mention the specifications for 4k on pages 4-5 listing each cameras video recording specifications. To be honest it brings to question the maturity and perspective of your review staff who apparently decided to leave specifications out because they have hurt feelings in how those features were implemented?
Heck by page 6 where you 'compare' the video (offerings) anyone not already in the know might not think the A7S offered 4k at all unless they catch the HDMI-out line item, and were looking for a feature set spec there, but again no specifications for 4k are provided.

To many out there, both in video and general everything stills, the Sony might provide the better system to build on - especially if color/tone/dr/iso and the ability to use just about every lens out there, at native perspective and dof, are important to them.

Ah, I see the maturity question still lingers..

On the pages for each camera's 'Movie Mode' (page 4 for the Sony and page 5 for the Panasonic) under the heading of [VIDEO SPECIFICATIONS] there is no precursor that the following tables provided will be for internal recording only... You simply provide a table of video resolutions, frame rates, bit rates, codecs, etc supported by each camera - leaving out any information about the Sony's 4k recording. I am sure there are technical specifications for Sony's 4k recording too??

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the proceeding pages is there anything stating that the 'Movie Mode' pages will only provide video specifications for internal storage capabilities.

...obviously page 5 is for the Panasonic, I was referencing the specific pages provided for video specifications - that is the reason I stated "on pages 4-5 listing each cameras video recording specifications..."

If you put ego aside before responding you might assert more relevance..

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:49 UTC

We understand the disappointment that the A7S does not allow 4k recording to internal media, but it tarnishes DPRs image as a respected resource to not even mention the specifications for 4k on pages 4-5 listing each cameras video recording specifications. To be honest it brings to question the maturity and perspective of your review staff who apparently decided to leave specifications out because they have hurt feelings in how those features were implemented?
Heck by page 6 where you 'compare' the video (offerings) anyone not already in the know might not think the A7S offered 4k at all unless they catch the HDMI-out line item, and were looking for a feature set spec there, but again no specifications for 4k are provided.

To many out there, both in video and general everything stills, the Sony might provide the better system to build on - especially if color/tone/dr/iso and the ability to use just about every lens out there, at native perspective and dof, are important to them.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 19:13 UTC as 121st comment | 3 replies
On article Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: Noise, in the end, is subjective (not the 'presence' of course but whether it is objectionable) but in judging mere presence it is obvious this sensor is above all at certain settings, and no better/worse at other settings. Additionally bodies like the A7/R, D800/E, D610 are not in the same league whether viewing pixel, print, or web so there really is no debate here.

What should be noticed is the level of detail being resolved by the 'measly' 12mp, especially compared to 24mp and 36mp. It clearly shows there is significant merit in lower mp when the same tech is applied and no appreciable sacrifice in detail. That provides benefits in frame rates, better ISO at all output, and easier workflow. If anyone 'needs' to look at these results it is Nikon. They would realize that if/had they put something like this in a pro body (ala D710) they might have actually had the customer base needed to achieve the 720,000 unit production anticipated in the D800/e which has not seen half that.

That was part of my point, but it was mostly a jab at Nikon.
My primary point was that if you look at the performance spectrum of something like the A7S (which surpasses the D8xx in every way at every ISO setting, except DR at base ISO where it is only 0.5ev less however by ISO160 even has greater DR) it makes one wonder what consumers are really after, as it does not appear to be the evolution of digital photography.

If Sony had any real system lenses for the A7 series, a little better AF, and better EVF, we could be sitting here asking each other who Nikon and Canon are. There is little innovation coming from the big two other than providing some mp-pocket pool for some of their customer base, and as long as Sony is content with being the 'goto' OEM for other manufacturers we will not see anything actually 'needed' from Canon or Nikon any time soon.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 08:36 UTC
In reply to:

l_d_allan: Of interest? Michael Reichmann at LuLa mentioned a week or so ago that his eyeball didn't notice the A7s having a DR advantage over the A7r. Apparently, that was confirmed by DxoMark.

They are virtually tied at base ISO, but the majority of photographers cannot always shoot at base ISO, at every other setting the A7S has greater DR - which it was designed to provide.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 01:13 UTC

Impressive noise performance (but anticipated at the same time) but what is more noticeable is how the lack of noise provides greater detail resolve than is provided by more mp...

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 01:04 UTC as 84th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool (272 comments in total)

Noise, in the end, is subjective (not the 'presence' of course but whether it is objectionable) but in judging mere presence it is obvious this sensor is above all at certain settings, and no better/worse at other settings. Additionally bodies like the A7/R, D800/E, D610 are not in the same league whether viewing pixel, print, or web so there really is no debate here.

What should be noticed is the level of detail being resolved by the 'measly' 12mp, especially compared to 24mp and 36mp. It clearly shows there is significant merit in lower mp when the same tech is applied and no appreciable sacrifice in detail. That provides benefits in frame rates, better ISO at all output, and easier workflow. If anyone 'needs' to look at these results it is Nikon. They would realize that if/had they put something like this in a pro body (ala D710) they might have actually had the customer base needed to achieve the 720,000 unit production anticipated in the D800/e which has not seen half that.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 23:52 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jamesfrmphilly: anybody make a fast lens that is also small and light?

There are a great many actually.. but when you come across them you realize what it is that really makes modern lenses larger - autofocus, thick plastics, and image stabilization.. forgo those things and you have hundreds of small fast lenses at your disposal.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2014 at 00:49 UTC
On article Sony a6000 Review (894 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: This A6000 is a really nice camera, but so is the NEX-6, which can be bought at a huge discount now. Amazon is currently selling it for $520... with lens, and $440 without.

Sony continues to amaze me with their incredible values in camera bodies (but not so much for lenses.)

They have so many irons in the fire right now (SLT Alpha, E mount, FE mount, FF SLT, high end compacts, etc) that you wonder if they risk becoming a jack of all trades, but a master of none?

I think so far they have done a pretty good job of offering innovation, performance and value. I just hope it all works out to profitability for Sony, so their users can look forward to another decade of great cameras.

@Vinand
I believe others have accurately addressed the rather wishful proclamations.. however the battle that Sony will 'lose' is that the system will likely be abandoned before any significant lineup of lenses are available. The only consumer products Sony has maintained any significant product presence is televisions and video recorders, and even in video recorders they barely maintain any consistency with any one system.
Sony prides itself in being on the forefront of innovation, which is great for consumers and competition alike, but as soon as there are x% of players producing similar tech Sony moves on to something else. As a sensor fab they will likely have a 'presence' in digital photography for some time, like they do in many other technology fields, but their product history suggests they will likely not have a photography system to purchase into in the future.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2014 at 19:42 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (492 comments in total)
In reply to:

vittorionava: Looking at the small black symbol on the neck of the left bottle in comparison to oly pen ep2, oly omd em5 and pentax k5iis, just to find three different examples, makes me ask why this fuji is considered to offer a lot of detail... It's a mess!

You do understand this is a fixed lens camera right...?
Your comparison is not only against interchangeable lens cameras, but images taken using some of the better/best lenses available for those cameras...
Regardless of the cameras you chose, you are comparing the upper most left corner of the image to assess lens sharpness?? While it would be great if every lens was sharp across the whole frame, most people with photographic experience (specifically lenses/cameras designed to allow some hope of dof) anticipate some softness along the edges of the frame - where the majority of the time that area is already going to be oof anyway so it does not matter 99% of the time.
In actuality, if you make your comparison in other areas of the image the X100S is sharper than the better/best lenses used for testing the cameras you 'randomly' selected attempting to belittle the X100S.
Overall the industry considers the X100S one of the best high-end compact cameras available - for many reasons.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 17:03 UTC
On article Did Amazon just patent the seamless background setup? (133 comments in total)

...and the irony of it all - the thing that questions the real 'eventual' reason for the patent?? Most of Amazon's product shots are taken in a light-box, because it provides even greater light equalization and shadow correction, as opposed to this 'technique' which is actually more purposeful for portraits than products..

Some where in the bowels of Amazon a greedy little bean counter will eventually suggest to upper management that 'even a measly licensing fee of $0.01 per published photo will make millions'...

This is not an invention or new idea to begin with, but even if classified as so the applicant and application do not even fulfill the requirements of declaration:
Section 1.63:a:3 clearly requires a statement/oath - 'that the person executing the oath or declaration believes the named inventor or joint inventor to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor.'

--The original inventor--

No one, not even Amazon, could believe they discovered this technique...

Link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 23:38 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »