matthiasbasler

matthiasbasler

Lives in Germany Germany
Works as a GIS developer, hobby photographer
Has a website at baslerphotos.de
Joined on Nov 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Dheorl: I can see this being used a lot in high end 360 rigs.

Mobile, light-weight 3D movie sets come to my mind, e.g. on paragliders or used by divers for documentary 3D underwater scenes. I've recently watched "African Safari 3D" and they used small 3D cameras for such purposes.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

LP0WELL: Pretty typical of a DPReview article, starts out with factual information, but drops the ball at the end. The final conclusion, "If your camera doesn’t capture more than 12 stops of DR, you probably shouldn’t clamor for 14-bit Raw" is myopic and misleading.

When the camera encodes a 12-stop DR in a 12-bit RAW file, just as the article states, the brightest stop of highlights is encoded using half the steps of the 4096-step 12-bit range. But take a look at that darkest 12th stop of shadow detail (first diagram) - it's encoded with just 2 steps of detail, which makes it nothing more than a dark silhouette. With a 14-bit RAW image, that 12th stop of DR would be encoded with 8 levels of precision, preserving four times as much shadow detail as a 12-bit RAW image.

> preserving four times as much shadow detail as a 12-bit RAW image.

Except, that if "the camera encodes a 12-stop DR" there would be no further shadow detail to be preserved in the first place, because the sensor cannot capture the differences between dark and a bit darker. You'd only get noise. That's what this article correctly says.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Photography Matters: A wonderful way to turn a nice DSLR with a quality sensor into a good P&S. Don't get me wrong, these gallery shots are quite good, but as CCD FTW observes, "the Sigma 100-400mm...is in a whole other league." I went to a baseball game with the Sigma lens attached to a Nikon D500. I missed a lot of shots that could have used a sub-100mm focal length. With this lens, I would have gotten those shots, but my long shots would have been inferior.

So, I'm conflicted. Sacrifice IQ and have a "good enough" one-lens solution, or look like a geek and endure the hassle of carrying 2 camera bodies to cover the entire focal range with no compromise lenses.

Sorry for my ignorance, but who or what is "CCD FTW"?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 15:17 UTC
In reply to:

Sarah Terra: Interesting food for thought :

Nikon 18-300 VR: 830g
Nikon 300mm F4 PF: 755g
Tamron 18-400: 705g

This is now the lightest lens over 300mm that i know of, could be a real winner for hiking and wildlifers.

My 300mm f4 PF and 1.4x TC gives 420mm @f5.6, for 945g.

Advantage in favor of the 300mm is you can add other TC's for even further reach, much higher IQ, probably better AF performance, and it's useable on full frame sensors as well.

Advantage for the Tamron is the zoom range, lighter weight and price.

I'm tempted to try one

I would add one more to the list: the recently launched "Sigma Cont. AF 100-400mm 5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM". (1.16kg)

I'd really like to see a direct comparison of this lens and the Tamron, as they both seem to appeal to wildlife/animal photographers who want to travel light and don't want to spend a fortune on a long zoom lens.

The questions I hope to get answered during the next months are:
- Which one performs better overall in the 200-400mm range? (Not only in terms of sharpness, but also concerning out-of-focus bokeh, AF reliability and speed, and handling.)
- Is the higher weight and more "limited" range of the Sigma 100-400 compensated by better image quality and/or better AF performance? Or does the Tamron offer more flexibility at no (or hardly) any penalty?

It would be nice to see them tested not only on a Canon, but also on a Nikon body, as I doubt the AF behaviour is comparable on both, especially in LiveView mode.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 15:13 UTC

I'm sorry but the one think that struck me most about the samples was not about the lens.
It was the the amount of noise which imho makes it hard to judge anything like lens sharpness. But it was especially the fact that images at ISO100 to 800 were already *that* noisy. Why do these photos, shot in bright sunlight show more noise at ISO100 than the ISO200 RAW images I process from my G81 m43(!) camera in Camera Raw 9.10 with noise reduction OFF? (I did a direct comparison.)

What went wrong? The 80D can do better according to your test chart RAW images.

Two suggestions for the next sample gallery:
1. Use lower ISO settings at least for a part of the images (across the zoom range). The third image with the bee was shot at ISO800 + 1/2000s. That image would very likely be sharper at ISO200 and +1/500. After all this lens has image stabilization.

2. Find out how to process the images so they do not look that grainy.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply

Wow! No more to say.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 18:28 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Really loved the flying scenes. But please, cut away the rest. Flowers, kids, people jumping and swimming elephants. Unnecessary fillers. IMHO. More fast flying over interesting areas though.

BTW - the stars? Where they for real? Did the drone really stop and take a long super stabilized exposure at every image?

The helicopter doesn't have to stop - and better should not stop in order to get a fluent linear movement through the time-lapse. All that is important is that the camera faces exactly into the same direction during any whole exposure. This can be achieved with a very good gimbal (or alternatively by aligning and stacking many subsequent short exposure shots the way astrophotographers often do). The foreground becomes somewhat unsharp then, but the stars remain sharp.

P.S. I believe a full-size movie with just time-lapses would be boring as well, so I like that it has other scenes inbetween.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 18:28 UTC

Honestly I have no idea why some people consider this a joke. Some decades ago so called "fix focus" compact cameras were widely spread among beginners, so the concept is not exactly out of this world.

This is clearly not the lens for studio photographers who desire optimum image quality and control over DOF.

But for street photographers it can be interesting. How often did I already miss a good shot because the camera didn't focus correctly (or at all) when I pressed the shutter button in a hurry in order to catch a fleeting moment? These were the occasions where such a lens could have helped.

Over 500$ sounds a bit expensive for such lens. But real prices may be lower after a while.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 17:18 UTC as 66th comment | 7 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (212 comments in total)

This camera is 6 years old, and still...
... it could be used in science fiction movie today and most people would think: Wow, this looks futuristic. (Just don't tell the audience its a normal camera. Pretend it to be an medical scanning device, a teleportation device or something along this line.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 19:25 UTC as 5th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: The Canon PowerShot G3 (96 comments in total)

I also switched to digital with this camera in 2003. It was a revelation for me. Suddenly I was able to get sharp 4MP images in contrast to the soft prints from my negative still camera (an enthusiast Canon Super 135 compact).
With these clean 4MP images I could create 30x45cm posters which looked fine for me.
The low-light-capabilities were much better, and I could switch ISO for every scene!
I could immediately see if I got a flower sharp or not. No paying for prints and no more growing photo folders.
I never ever had the desire to use a classical camera again.

Indeed, now that someone mentioned: Yes, it had an "intervalometer", and this is when my love for timelapses was born. I believe I shot my first one down from Grouse Mountain overlooking Vancouver City during dusk. It was limited to 100 images unfortunately.
For some reason Canon failed to add a built-in intervalometer to its consumer DSLRs, so nowadays I use Nikon and Panasonic for time lapses.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 17:17 UTC as 14th comment

Strange: Again and again I have been told here on dpreview how much better smartphone cameras have become.
And now I read that it takes a Google engineer the effort to create a custom app and quite a bit of Photoshop magic in order to get images I can easily get from one shot with probably any recent APSC or full frame camera (for well below 1000US$).

This explains why most smartphone photos created by "normal people" which I have seen in the past years still looked poor in my opinion. (Details smeared away by noise reduction, greyish colors, often underexposed.) The typical John Doe will not set up a tripod, create multiple exposures, dark frames and likely has no idea what a DNG file is.

So this article mainly shows the obvious:
You have to know about photography in order to create high-quality images.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:32 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (202 comments in total)

Throwaway thursday? ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:13 UTC as 37th comment
On article NAB 2017: Hot products and trends (50 comments in total)

> I'm not convinced that consumers are quite ready to begin moving to 8K TVs yet, especially since most of them haven't even gone 4K.

You got it.
How much is a 4K beamer for home cinema currently? 4000€ and upwards.
But this will of course not be a showstopper for industry to promote 8K anyway.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:01 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: BTW, this disposable junk is a lot easier to recycle than your electronic junk...come off your high horse

This is most likely true for the camera alone, but take the films, development chemicals and photo paper into account, and compare the overall ecological footprint of this camera and a digital camera after one year of typical use (assuming you are reusing this camera).

Things will look different then.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 06:03 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Impulses: Just because someone at Lomo got past this any department with an ounce of sense doesn't mean there's still a market... It just means Lomo wants there to be one.

I would be seriously interested to know which people use them for what reason, because I for one cannot come up with any single use case.

Even If I forgot my camera at home (or the battery is low/memory card is full), then it is very unlikely no one else has a smartphone at hand AND there is a store nearby selling disposable cameras. (I haven't seen any sold anywhere, but haven't been searching for them either.) Maybe its just the "Look at me, I got some different tool." notion that creates this market? Don't know.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 05:57 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: Of course the usual bashing of a new product in the comments section. If DPR users are to be believed, almost no new product should make it to the market, so flawed it always is.

Why don't we celebrate every new photographic product? With the camera market in decline, should we not be happy for every manufacturer that still has the courage to try something new (or old, as in this case)?

"Usual bashing"?
Not quite the point. I have seen other new products warmly welcomed and embraced in the comments section, mostly well-specified high end products though and products which solved real existing problems.
Unfortunately industry is throwing quite a lot of superfluous or half-baked products at the market and its the "task" of the users to sort them out.

But maybe we have to acknowledge that dpreview users are not representative and that there are markets for products which don't appeal to the typical (enthusiast/pro?) readers of this web site.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 05:50 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Haim Hadar: I pledge to support a Kickstarter project that would bring this down.

Donating old equipment is a very good idea. I tend to give things away to a charity shop or the recycling center where people can buy them for a bargain.

@Jerome
I wouldn't call this camera cheap at all.
Many years ago I bought my first camera in a warehouse for 20 German Mark (maybe 10-15 USD at that time?) including one film. And that one, although not very capable, did have an auto exposure time and changing films was not an issue.
But of course, it didn't have three filters included ... ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (46 comments in total)

Two things come into my mind:
1. With fixed aperture, speed and ISO, how is this camera getting a correct exposure outside where it cannot even use a flash for compensation? Is this a pure indoor camera?

2. I really dislike single-use products, and here chemicals are involved too. I am trying to avoid plastic bags, single-use batteries etc. and the industry permanently comes up with new throw-away ideas. For example, a few years ago I read an advertising sign: "Get a new smartphone every year!"
Thank you Lomo, go on, have fun and ruin the planet...

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:38 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: "Extremely dramatic"? I'd say: Extremely disappointing to watch.

By coincidence, just a few weeks ago there was a documentary about the Victoria Falls in Tanzania on TV (on "arte"), where, among others, they followed a single photographer, who, among others, shot beautiful "moonbow" time-lapses over the waterfalls. Believe me, they looked 10 times more colorful and bright than the hard-to-see moonbow in this video.

OK, the difference is that he didn't do a real-time "video", so he didn't have to capture 25fps or the like, but just one picture every few seconds. But hey, it's the result that counts.

Sorry, you are right of course. No idea why I had Tanzania in mind ... /-)

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)

"Extremely dramatic"? I'd say: Extremely disappointing to watch.

By coincidence, just a few weeks ago there was a documentary about the Victoria Falls in Tanzania on TV (on "arte"), where, among others, they followed a single photographer, who, among others, shot beautiful "moonbow" time-lapses over the waterfalls. Believe me, they looked 10 times more colorful and bright than the hard-to-see moonbow in this video.

OK, the difference is that he didn't do a real-time "video", so he didn't have to capture 25fps or the like, but just one picture every few seconds. But hey, it's the result that counts.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 18:35 UTC as 33rd comment | 4 replies
Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »