nicolaiecostel

Lives in Romania Timisoara, Romania
Works as a photographer
Joined on Aug 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 597, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

Must be a bet between the company's CEO's. They must be laughing their head off at this point.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 18:47 UTC as 288th comment
In reply to:

endofoto: In this review, we do not see Raw comparison. I compared it with D750 (same price), there is a huge difference, I think Nikon is trying to justify 2000$ for a crop sensor camera. D7200 has the same performance with half price and lighter, perfect for birding. For sports D500 is not suitable, as the quality degrades with high ISO. Even D750 is much better than D5 at high ISO. I dont understand what Nikon is trying to do with these two cameras.

What ? The D750 is maximum 1 stop better than the D500, while the D500 has a crop factor. This baby is made for sports !

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 06:32 UTC

The D750 is better, with cleaner files and better detail retention at any ISO. Plus more megapixels.

I don't know what people were on about.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 06:31 UTC as 62nd comment
In reply to:

sdh: I've been wondering for years now if DSLR makers would ever go this route. Good to see someone making a first pass, but I can't help wondering if it's a bit late. I'm hoping that on-sensor phase focus systems are on the brink of becoming commonplace, at least for mirrorless/live view systems.

And as for optical VF cameras, it seems to me that it should be possible to design a sensor with embedded phase-focus pixels, where only the focus pixels are active all the time (for focusing), while the rest of the sensor is idle until exposure time, at which point the whole sensor wakes up, the mirror flips, etc etc.

They're not in a hurry to provide a complete, comprehensive calibration tool because their service network makes good money out of calibrating cameras and lenses ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 05:43 UTC
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: The noise from the photos taken at night of the motorcycle and the car crash seem pretty dreadful for a camera body costing £6000.
I could take pics that noisy with either of my Sony cameras which were one twentieth of the price.
Other than that, a great camera.
In fact, quite apart from my facetiousness, why haven't these been through some sort of in-camera process to de-noise them a bit? I think the Sonys can do that, so I'd be fairly certain Nikon do the same...or is this the best it gets?

I guess this isn't Nikon's best effort. Maybe they'll improve it with firmware.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

racin06: I suppose that if you are primarily a sports/action shooter, then the $6500 may be justfied. However, from a pure image quality standpoint, sorry...I just don't see it. The low-light image quality of the D5 is only slightly better than what the best APS-C and even Micro 4/3 cameras are producing with good glass attached. Under adequate lighting conditions, the difference is even more minuscule. Let the flamming begin! I have thick skin.

These images are very noisy for some unknown reason, this is not what I have seen the D5 do, and I have seen a lot of galleries with clean files even at 25.600.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 07:05 UTC
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: The noise from the photos taken at night of the motorcycle and the car crash seem pretty dreadful for a camera body costing £6000.
I could take pics that noisy with either of my Sony cameras which were one twentieth of the price.
Other than that, a great camera.
In fact, quite apart from my facetiousness, why haven't these been through some sort of in-camera process to de-noise them a bit? I think the Sonys can do that, so I'd be fairly certain Nikon do the same...or is this the best it gets?

I have seen D5 galleries, multiple ones, with very clean files up to the higher ISOs, even here on DPR. My guess is that these pictures have been pushed in postprocessing/processed with a crappy converter or you're just looking at the jpegs.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Some of the lenses used in this series need calibration. Some images are really noisy at kinda low ISO values (Jpeg).

Other than that, very nice gallery.

Sure thing.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2016 at 16:01 UTC

Some of the lenses used in this series need calibration. Some images are really noisy at kinda low ISO values (Jpeg).

Other than that, very nice gallery.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2016 at 15:17 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: The question is: Why are such absurdly expensive cameras so unbelievably butt ugly??? :D

They're designed to be modular and functional, not marketing tools.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 21:57 UTC
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

fzrTom: A little question : who is using this kind of camera and what for ?

As many companies sale medium format cameras with a very high pricing (10k$, 20k$, 30k$, much more$) I'm curious to know who use them ?

Fashion photographers, portrait photographers, people that print large or in high quality publications.

Anyone who can afford them and doesn't shoot sports or wildlife, basically.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

mike051051: ..so these guys are at it again? I thought they would have gotten tired of running the same scam over and over and over again, but I guess I underestimated their capacity for misjudging the market, promising the moon and stars and delivering green cheese late and 4X over budget. The Emperor still has no clothes!

Produce this stand alone and operable totally independent of any Lytro cloud or servers, as you can do with Photoshop etc, and allow it to be output in whatever the prevalent file format is for commercial film distribution is these days and I might change my mind.

Shhh, don't spoil the amazement of technically challenged folks.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

rialcnis: Why do they sell these? To make every other camera sound inferior?

That price is wild.

Annie is brilliant, I'm sure this is just a small inconvenience that will be sorted. Trusting the wrong people can get you into trouble.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 09:55 UTC
On article Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review (258 comments in total)

TheCameraStore reviewed it and I think they called it the worst camera of 2015.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 16:05 UTC as 85th comment | 1 reply

What's interesting is that people actually bought into this whole "not pixels but rays" shabangery in the first place.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 07:23 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

rialcnis: Why do they sell these? To make every other camera sound inferior?

That price is wild.

some people need them for high end product and fashion shoots. some people have lenses and bodies and accesories from years or decades of continual work with hasselblad. some people want the best quality possible, no compromise, without caring for 50-60k for the camera. some people rent.

when you're a fashion pro and you book a multi hundred dollar model, build a multi thousand dollar prop, use high end lighting where a single parabolic reflector costs 8 grand, you kinda don't care about the cost of a camera that you use for years anyway.

annie leibowitz was quoted for requesting jet planes to be lit on fire on her shoots. do you think she cared about the price of the camera ?

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

Kostasm: 4K Hasselblad RAW video sounds more exciting than 100mp.

What do you mean uncropped ? The MF camera uses a different ratio than the video standard, it's bound to be cropped.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

PKDanny: Nice but want to see review and sample.

Search for Karl Taylor's review.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 20:09 UTC

Karl Taylor already made a sort of review.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 20:08 UTC as 60th comment
In reply to:

JKP: Lytro could have been a great camera for macro photography, where people often need to take multiple images and stack them together to obtain sharp image. If the subject moves fast, stacking becomes hard. Lytro's approach would hav solved the problem, if just sufficient resolution was available.

It wouldn't have had success, you need real detail and sharpness for macro, not 2 megapixel images stacked together.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 13:48 UTC
Total: 597, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »