ThrillaMozilla

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 71, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article How to photograph the northern lights (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Not so long ago dpreview chose to run (link to) an article critical of how Instagram is 'liking natural wonders to death'.

https://www.dpreview.com/comments/4135488301/instagram-is-liking-natural-wonders-to-death

And now here is an article promoting the photography of the Aurora Borealis or Australis. Something you really need to do by travelling (flying) into the Arctic or Antartic circles. Just what is dpreview's stance on this kind of photo-tourism?

Ah, yes. I forgot about that. And then there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora#Aurora_noise

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 15:48 UTC
On article How to photograph the northern lights (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Not so long ago dpreview chose to run (link to) an article critical of how Instagram is 'liking natural wonders to death'.

https://www.dpreview.com/comments/4135488301/instagram-is-liking-natural-wonders-to-death

And now here is an article promoting the photography of the Aurora Borealis or Australis. Something you really need to do by travelling (flying) into the Arctic or Antartic circles. Just what is dpreview's stance on this kind of photo-tourism?

"Safety tip: Do not whistle!"

OK, I'll bite. Is that so the beavers won't get you? [/Crude attempt at so-called Canadian humor]

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

photoholiko: Judging by the response to this article, maybe DPR should start a forum for old vintage Digital cameras.

I'm holding out for pinhole HDR photography.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

ThrillaMozilla: "I think a lot of photographers find freedom when they shoot film..."

Yeah, right. I suppose if you count freedom from expectations. Film is expensive, slow, grainy, nonlinear, irreproducible, inflexible, and you can't check your work until it's too late. But it was great when the alternative was nothing. :)

I'm glad it's back, though. Now I can sell all my film equipment to film buffs at premium prices.

And when I went back to my 4 MP advanced point-and-shoot (for what reason I can't even imagine) I found myself frustrated. As my wife said, I've shot a lot of good pictures with it, but I've gotten used to better stuff. MUCH better. The only advantage is that it's small. Strange article.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 18:07 UTC

"I think a lot of photographers find freedom when they shoot film..."

Yeah, right. I suppose if you count freedom from expectations. Film is expensive, slow, grainy, nonlinear, irreproducible, inflexible, and you can't check your work until it's too late. But it was great when the alternative was nothing. :)

I'm glad it's back, though. Now I can sell all my film equipment to film buffs at premium prices.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 06:26 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
On article Canon EOS Rebel SL2 / EOS 200D Review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

junk1: I only use the center AF point, so does the 9 points versus 45 points (or more) that other models have matter? Article also mentions T7i somehow uses color information to focus?
Can't recall if T7i uses the same sensor as 80D and SL2...I think so, so if using live view, they are the same.
Only other thing I need to check is mechanical shutter sync speed (which is actually been shooting hummingbirds, so a fast shutter is important (not exactly the same thing as fast exposure). A super fast electronic shutter would be best of course, the "global shutter".

"I only use the center AF point, so does the 9 points versus 45 points (or more) that other models have matter? Article also mentions T7i somehow uses color information to focus?"

It's hard to rely on the 9 point array for hummingbirds because it's easy to miss the bird unless it's close. 45 should be better. But with hummingbirds you can focus on the body and find the head out of focus, and nothing beats the center point if you can manage it. But with these small birds, because of narrow depth of field, you lose accuracy if you recompose. With SL1, using a focus array you also have to worry about focusing on background instead of bird.

You just have to try and see. I'm thinking of 77D myself for hummingbirds.

"Can't recall if T7i uses the same sensor as 80D and SL2."

Yes. And 77D.

"Only other thing I need to check is mechanical shutter sync speed"

1/250 I believe. Just check the specs. It doesn't really make much difference unless it's MUCH faster -- and it isn't.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

I see. So you don't have access to either camera, do you?

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

'@ ThrillaMozilla: " I don't see any advantage to the D5.'

You quoted only the second half of the sentence. Discussion's over. Enjoy your D5.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

"Changing pixel size won't make up for the loss of quality and loss of dynamic range at high ISO."

You don't CHANGE pixels size, but you have to CORRECT for pixel size in order to compare the data. If you're going to compare cameras from test data, then you understand how to compare them on an equal basis. From the DR or noise data, I don't see any advantage to the D5.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

I already told you. You don't have to guess. Claff has already tested the D850. The advantage is about 2/3 stop, but there's no advantage after you correct for pixel size.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2017 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

"@ThrillaMozilla LOL You probably don't know how to read a DXOMark score so I won't bother showing you how the D5 kills the D810 / D850 at high ISO DR."

Now I KNOW you're making stuff up. D810, 97; D5 88. Sports: D810, 2853 ISO; D5 2434 ISO. D850 not tested. Canon 5D IV 2995 ISO.

But let's get back to the subject, and I'll give you a fig leaf. In 2016 DPR wrote: "The D5 offers the best subject tracking we've seen in any DSLR, and indeed any camera we've tested to date. Bar none."

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2017 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

"The D5 embarrasses the D850 at:
-much better high ISO
-much better dynamic range at high ISO (approx. ISO-1600 and above)"

Not really.

Hey, there, Nikon-D. I thought you wanted to talk about focusing and the lousy article. But since you insist....

The difference in DR is only 2/3 stop, but the difference disappears after correction for pixel size.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Not that I care. Just bursting your fan bubble. They're different cameras for different purposes. You can't judge them by price tags.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Maybe turn of all in camera image processing (it takes op processor time). If there really is a problem it is probably repairable through a firmware update.

"...with the help of some therapy to finally understand that the $4000 model will NEVER EVER be the equal of the $10000 top of the line flagship model from Nikon."

Nikon-D-shooter, not all of us judge a camera by the price tag. The "flagship" is actually much inferior in some respects, including number of pixels AND read noise.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

ThrillaMozilla: This looks like a pretty crappy test, and I have to question his reporting. Watching the focus spots, I'm not so sure he's reporting the results accurately. He did show some images that he said proved his point, but he offers only a brief glimpse with a crappy video.

Did anyone notice how poorly the D5 did at 3:00? Contrary to what he said, on the first test, the D5 focusing spot missed the subject almost half the time, but he says it did "really well".

Just before that, on the first attempt with the D850 he says it did "reasonably well". But on the D5 he calls an similar performance "really well", even though it doesn't appear that it did any better. So what's reasonably good for one is really good for the other.

On the first test in the park it doesn't look like he initiated focus. On another test with the D850 it never caught up, but that's only one example.

I have no idea how the cameras actually perform, but it appears to me that his reporting and testing were sloppy.

Fanboy? LOL. I'll probably never even use that $3300 "prosumer" camera. But I know sloppy testing when I see it.

Do you have actual first-hand knowledge of the two cameras? I'm much more persuadable by carefully considered information than by hack reporting.

Actually, the "prosumer" model has better performance than the flagship in some ways. So if it's all right with you, we won't mention the very high read noise of the flagship, and we can just stick to discussing focusing and the review.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 14:55 UTC

This looks like a pretty crappy test, and I have to question his reporting. Watching the focus spots, I'm not so sure he's reporting the results accurately. He did show some images that he said proved his point, but he offers only a brief glimpse with a crappy video.

Did anyone notice how poorly the D5 did at 3:00? Contrary to what he said, on the first test, the D5 focusing spot missed the subject almost half the time, but he says it did "really well".

Just before that, on the first attempt with the D850 he says it did "reasonably well". But on the D5 he calls an similar performance "really well", even though it doesn't appear that it did any better. So what's reasonably good for one is really good for the other.

On the first test in the park it doesn't look like he initiated focus. On another test with the D850 it never caught up, but that's only one example.

I have no idea how the cameras actually perform, but it appears to me that his reporting and testing were sloppy.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 02:58 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ThrillaMozilla: Based on this footage, I'd say the Canon wins hands down. The green skin from the video camera is not good, but I'm also not convinced about the dynamic range, because they didn't compare on a fair basis.

Go to 5:43 and look at the sign. It's in focus in the Canon, out of focus on the movie camera. That means the exposure conditions were not equivalent. They admitted that they didn't use a fast lens for the Canon, and that probably meant higher ISO and therefore needlessly reduced dynamic range. That scene is also given less exposure for the Canon. All this puts the Canon at an unfair disadvantage.

And check out the flare from the Alexa at 6:13!

Based on this botched footage, with this compressed format and probably reduced resolution, I can't really tell which one is better. I'm sure there's a reason why professional videos are shot with professional video cameras, but they sure didn't demonstrate it here.

There's more, too. Look at the hair on Alexa at 3:11. Big problem. The same problem happens with the Canon on the back and backside, a few seconds later, but you'll have to look harder to see it.

At one point the Canon focuses on the background. The Alexa focus puller wins there, but at other points the Canon focuses better.

I've looked at it now with an excellent monitor, and there are places where the Canon suffers from too high contrast. That makes the mid tones and shadows a bit dark, or causes clipped highlights. That's a situation where highlight tone priority is likely to help, by mapping a wider tonal range into the 8 bit video output. I assume that they didn't use it.

I assume the crew was used to the Alexa, but maybe not the Canon. Neither camera appears to have been used optimally. In my opinion, this demo is not a slam dunk for either camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 07:21 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: The beach shot at 1:38 - the DSLR just blows the sky to white around the sun while the ARRI maintains details enough to outline the sun.

"The beach shot at 1:38 - the DSLR just blows the sky to white around the sun while the ARRI maintains details enough to outline the sun."

Not really. Just look at the clouds. You can hardly see the clouds with the Arri, but you can see them clearly with the Canon.

And look at the lens flare on the face at 1:39. It's displayed at the top of this page. With the Arri you can hardly even see the water. Here it's a lens thing, not DR, but still the Canon wins easily with its consumer lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 21:36 UTC

Based on this footage, I'd say the Canon wins hands down. The green skin from the video camera is not good, but I'm also not convinced about the dynamic range, because they didn't compare on a fair basis.

Go to 5:43 and look at the sign. It's in focus in the Canon, out of focus on the movie camera. That means the exposure conditions were not equivalent. They admitted that they didn't use a fast lens for the Canon, and that probably meant higher ISO and therefore needlessly reduced dynamic range. That scene is also given less exposure for the Canon. All this puts the Canon at an unfair disadvantage.

And check out the flare from the Alexa at 6:13!

Based on this botched footage, with this compressed format and probably reduced resolution, I can't really tell which one is better. I'm sure there's a reason why professional videos are shot with professional video cameras, but they sure didn't demonstrate it here.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

RonnieJ: I see a lot of OVERREACTION to this video. I think it's great and in no way did he endanger anyone or anything except his drone. Now whether he violated any laws is no concern of mine just as the graffiti on the train cars is of no consequence to me, however unlawful it may be. Technically, drone footage shot doing landscape, derelict buildings, scenery etc. may in fact be illegal, trespassing. Flying in traffic around roads and highways or around unaware people would be a completely different story. I appreciate the talent that went into this video and happy DPR posted it.

"Conductors have crashed due to texting, so a drone buzzing the train for three minutes or so could certainly throw the operator off his or her game. it's complex and very serious."

Right. And the next time you wave at an engineer and he waves back, are you both going to be prosecuted for distraction? A little common sense, please.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: I have a very hard time imagining a way that this or any small consumer quad could wreck a train, except for distracting the engineer. And this video shows no evidence of effort to do that, just a brief moment where it paces the locomotive from a safe distance. Once it's back at the middle of the train, the engineer has no way of seeing that. Methinks the real danger in this video is to the drone itself.

If you look at it as a precedent for some other level of drone annoyance/invasion, I can see why you'd be upset. But as far as this goes, I'm just going to applaud his flying skills.

"I have a very hard time imagining a way that this or any small consumer quad could wreck a train, except for distracting the engineer."

Right. An engineer has to be constantly alert to keep the train on the tracks, and poised with razor sharp reflexes to swerve or stop suddenly to avoid any obstacle. All those engineers who turn their heads to wave at people are risking instant disaster, and this is no different.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 19:34 UTC
Total: 71, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »