Simon Joinson

Simon Joinson

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United States SEATTLE, WA, United States
Works as a Editor, writer, photographer
Has a website at www.dpreview.com
Joined on Jul 9, 2002
About me:

http://www.cff.org/

Comments

Total: 832, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Canon EOS 5D IV: What you need to know (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabba dabba doo: Does DPR purchase their sample cameras or does Canon give them to them?

@SmilerGrogan
Whilst it might be true that people are less critical of 'gifted' things, that simply isn't the case here. We are lent cameras for a set period of time, after which they go back to the manufacturer. No gifting, ever (even if they were gifted, we're not allowed to keep them per company policy). We also sometimes buy cameras at retail.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 04:07 UTC
In reply to:

cbphoto123: Seriously? For a site that has earned truly the largest RESPECT, year after year for so many... I fear the direction DPR has taken, is leading to a place... where you will have to struggle to regain what you are quickly loosing.

*losing*

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 04:01 UTC
In reply to:

studiopwp: That's a Canon commercial, pure and simple.

honestly, if we get accused of producing Canon commercials and (see 'rolling shutter' video) intentionally trying to destroy Canon on behalf of Sony - in the same day - we're probably doing something right!

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

tex: As others have noted, a rather incomplete and idiosyncratic list....

@photouniverse, i wasn't being defensive, i was simply pointing out that we made no such claims. Funnily enough i just read an article called '30 albums we can’t believe turn 20 this year' - It too was an incomplete and idiosyncratic list that ignored virtually every album released in 1985, including my favorites, which I strongly believe would've been a better choice. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

tex: As others have noted, a rather incomplete and idiosyncratic list....

I'm pretty sure that the title '11 Photoshop Alternatives' doesn't imply either a 'complete' or a 'definitive' list.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

Achiron: This is a neat review, I don't mind the timing at all. Good to know how good or bad cameras are.

The thing I don't like is that you didn't address the battery life. The CIPA rating is not really accurate. I for example use E-PL7 that is rated with 300-350? I got more than one battery, and I had the pleasure of replacing battery mid-shoot (took like 10 seconds), but I can say that up to that moment it took maybe 500 raw files and more than an hour of 1080p video. IDK how CIPA do their calculations, but I can only assume it refers to shots with flash at 100%.

My question is, in real world use, how many shots does the battery last?

Cipa numbers are not 'accurate' (because there are so many variables involved, from flash usage to ambient temps) but they are consistent and can be used to compare products reliably. Our experience is that if you don't use built in flash much and don't use live view for 5 mins between shots, you'll get way more shots than the cipa number suggests.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

capanikon: Eh. Still a decade or more behind DSLRs.

My DSLR has terrible call quality

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 23:44 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: The statement about visitors staying twice as long with the white pages could be something as simple as those using dark pages have been here 100 times before (i.e. more experienced users..) hence i'm not sure that's a good metric to use..

Personally, I like the black pages, and would also really prefer that you don't put facebook/twitter/youtube reading mode bar at the top, it's just an additional waste of page space and yet more distraction..

if that were the only piece of data we had at our disposal I'd have no way to prove you right or wrong. Fortunately it isn't :)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 03:41 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit annoyed. In the 1960-1990ies they could make small and nice 50 mm F1.4. Or even smaller and nice 50 mm F1.7. Small jewels. I am mainly thinking about the Pentax M, K, F and FA lenses, and actually also the M42 Takumars.

OK - the big monsters of today are better - much better. But, with today's computers and exotic glasses and aspheric lenses, you are bound to be able to make much better small lenses than yesterday's small lenses. Even better small jewels. And those small things could, of course come at a lower price than the monsters of today.

But, no, big and expensive. That is it. Or zooms. And more zooms.

I mean - an improved FA 20 mm F2.8? Not bigger, but much better. Sounds possible! Or maybe F4, if that is easier? Then it might even have a 49 mm thread.

And when they are at it - maybe also the mechanical quality of the Takumars? I mean, they are 50 years old. I mean, 2016 it should be easy and cheap to make what they did 1960?

Interesting facts: In 1956 a Nikkor 50mm F1.4 cost the equivalent of $1800 in today's money. By 1979 the same lens cost you about $560 in today's money. By the late 1980's most 50mm F1.4 SLR lenses cost the equivalent of $180-250. So yeah, we're basically back in the 1950's, price-wise :)

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 01:06 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: It would be useful in future reviews if the following was possible,
A glossary to describe what Pro/Cons means according to Dpreview. (Rishi gave a definition that surprised me but it's now clear)
How categories are weighted (in percentage terms).
ALL tests are carried out on ALL cameras and ALL results posted.
The same lenses are used on all tests (by this I mean for example 70-200 F2.8 NOT 2.8 for one camera and F4 for another).
The review shouldn't refer to cameras in a different category, the often quoted DPR expression, "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category."
IF comparisons are felt necessary to cameras in different categories it should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that they are from different categories.
It should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR when a reviewer is making a subjective statement.
Reviewers should NEVER make statements which could be construed as 'snarky' or 'sarcastic'.
The award should NOT be based on a subjective view but solely based on FACTS.

Lol, no - I get paid for doing this :D

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 22:04 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: It would be useful in future reviews if the following was possible,
A glossary to describe what Pro/Cons means according to Dpreview. (Rishi gave a definition that surprised me but it's now clear)
How categories are weighted (in percentage terms).
ALL tests are carried out on ALL cameras and ALL results posted.
The same lenses are used on all tests (by this I mean for example 70-200 F2.8 NOT 2.8 for one camera and F4 for another).
The review shouldn't refer to cameras in a different category, the often quoted DPR expression, "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category."
IF comparisons are felt necessary to cameras in different categories it should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that they are from different categories.
It should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR when a reviewer is making a subjective statement.
Reviewers should NEVER make statements which could be construed as 'snarky' or 'sarcastic'.
The award should NOT be based on a subjective view but solely based on FACTS.

or maybe it was just an attempt to lighten the mood...

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 19:35 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Professor999: It would be useful in future reviews if the following was possible,
A glossary to describe what Pro/Cons means according to Dpreview. (Rishi gave a definition that surprised me but it's now clear)
How categories are weighted (in percentage terms).
ALL tests are carried out on ALL cameras and ALL results posted.
The same lenses are used on all tests (by this I mean for example 70-200 F2.8 NOT 2.8 for one camera and F4 for another).
The review shouldn't refer to cameras in a different category, the often quoted DPR expression, "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category."
IF comparisons are felt necessary to cameras in different categories it should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that they are from different categories.
It should be made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR when a reviewer is making a subjective statement.
Reviewers should NEVER make statements which could be construed as 'snarky' or 'sarcastic'.
The award should NOT be based on a subjective view but solely based on FACTS.

we have received the list of demands. Now we need evidence the hostage is safe.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 16:44 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

asp1880: This AF-C discussion ought to be winding down by now. So perhaps I shouldn't be posting this then...
Anyway - two things:
1. I trust the DPR AF-C test. Its results on the Pentax cameras mirror my own experiences very well. My own K-3 also usually adjusts the focus only every second or third exposure in an AF-C burst. And I've shot a good amount of competitive bike racing with it.
2. The Pentax system is actually capable of shooting AF-C sequences where it adjusts the focus for every shot, even at closer range. I've seen this a number of times. But it's rare.

Regards,
--Anders.

I may be missing something here, but how does the burst speed (frames per second) show a camera to have excellent AF performance?

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 22:01 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuncanM1: From another review site:

"Autofocus performance was swift, comparing well with the Pentax K-3 II in my informal, real-world testing. (And our lab testing likewise found autofocus performance to be a strength of the Pentax K-1.)"
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1/pentax-k1-field-test.htm

Also, I understand why you do it, but choosing to put a lot of weight on a single word ('swift') in a vague sentence from someone's impression of performance in 'real world' use but refusing to believe us when we produce multiple examples of the C-AF failure is called 'confirmation bias'

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuncanM1: From another review site:

"Autofocus performance was swift, comparing well with the Pentax K-3 II in my informal, real-world testing. (And our lab testing likewise found autofocus performance to be a strength of the Pentax K-1.)"
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1/pentax-k1-field-test.htm

and what exactly are they 'lab testing'? they're testing the 'AF lag', which is a measure of how fast a camera can identify a target (a static chart in a studio), move the lens to the correct position and take a picture. This is both lens and illumination level dependent, and is literally the lowest possible bar for measuring AF performance. If a semi-pro DLSR can't nail single point AF in a well-lit studio, on a tripod, in a fraction of a second it might as well be manual focus.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:59 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

so what you're saying is that it doesn't work well with moving subjects? How is that different to what we wrote?

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Al wants a bagel: I think people are still angry after the debacle that was the pixel shift test. And I don't know why pixel shift is a con in the first place. That's like saying all Fuji cameras are bad because raw developers for X-Trans are still wildly inconsistent, and in some cases, not supported. And it's uses are limited, that is clear, but isn't that something that should be a plus? That they offer pixel shift should be a bonus, not derided as a feature that cannot be used in some cases.

Deriding the menu system and AF points selection? That is awfully subjective. I've found that over time, those have become second nature, and with so many features available at the press of an actual button, easily I find this camera to be more user friendly compared to my D750. And yes, there are many useful features in this camera not available on the D750. Like the outdoor view button, that button has become invaluable for outdoor shooting in my experience. So is having a dedicated GPS and WIFI button also.

who said that pixel shift is a con? We certainly didn't. We did point out its limitations, but we think that's probably useful for people who are considering buying it based on this feature.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 00:55 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

BNapa: It is ironic, I agree with most of the findings of DPReview in general. Perhaps they are correct in most of their assertions. However, there is such a thing as filed testing and shooting in real life situations. When it comes to that K1 delivers with flying colors.

I own the K1. The images it produces are stunning. I have owned Canons for 12 years and shot plenty of Nikon bodies. Nikon has the edge in autofocus and tracking. I will not dispute that. Both Canon and Nikon offer plenty of bodies and lenses for every need. But $1,800 for a body the caliber of the K1... nobody touches that.

all reviews take about 4 weeks of actual work, sometimes more (especially if we hit problems). We try to get those 4 weeks to be consecutive, but it doesn't always happen, meaning reviews get delayed, but the total amount of work in them doesn't vary a great deal.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 01:23 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Imaging resource write about the K-1:

"Autofocus performance was swift, comparing well with the Pentax K-3 II in my informal, real-world testing. (And our lab testing likewise found autofocus performance to be a strength of the Pentax K-1.)"

I own the K-1.

It is worth its weight in GOLD.

to be fair I didn't dismiss IR's review as 'swift'. Nor did i suggest that the bike test was a lab test (it's actually an illustration of our findings - we spend a lot of time with these cameras). I did point out that the rest of the COMMENT was purely anecdotal...

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 01:20 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

kalpeshmodi: Its disappointing to see that reviewer's at DPREVIEW were unable to maintain focus on person riding bike and resulting in blurry out-of-focus pics, There are plenty of pictures on Pentax forum from actual K-1 owners here at DPREVIEW getting excellent results shooting variety of action sports.
It is easy to blame on equipment than honning skill to use the equipment with proper skill set.

rule #1 is actually: 'Reviewers are always right when they say nice things about my camera and always wrong when they don't'

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
Total: 832, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »