nicolaiecostel

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

Comments

Total: 608, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (267 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 (267 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 86th 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
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: Seems all the previous ruckus about bad low-light was overblown. The images are relatively clean at ISO 32000.

You too, have read that article wrong. It said that low ISO shots show noise in the shadows when the exposure was lifted in post processing, which had nothing to do with the camera having a noise problem at either small or high ISO.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 05:48 UTC
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

halfwaythere: Anything above ISO 25600 is pure trash.

Useable 60.000 shots. What are you talking about ? The noise is not really visible on print and resized for web, most of them work.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 05:45 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: ....and this image is a perfect example of why I sold all my DSLR gear and switched to mirrorless. Ridiculously big setup.

Really ? What 11-24 f/4 FF equivalent zoom do you have for your mirroless ? Ahh..

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 07:01 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: So ISO 50k looks to be the top usable ISO for these raws--not a lot better than the D4S. This looks to be similar to the mistake of releasing the D4 as less of a high ISO body than the D3S.

Hey ISO 50k raws from the Fuji XPro2 are just as usable.

Then use the Fuji then, and stop wasting our time with this nonsense. Fuji cameras don't even report the ISO correctly, they lie about using a higher value, some say up to a stop.

Secondly, having shot same generation crop sensor and FF sensors in the same conditions I can tell you that there's no way in hell that Fuji would be as good as the Nikon. Honestly, if you can get the D5 alongside your Fuji and it performs, on similar/real exposure settings, close or the same, I will eat that fuji screw by screw. The biggest difference you'll see is in the low light, where the FF with a good lens retains clearly more detail and goes higher in usable ISO compared to a crop sensor, around 1-2 stops more.

According to reviewers, the Fuji is similar to the D7200 in performance, and that is now way near the D5.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 06:49 UTC
In reply to:

Joachim Gerstl: Ok. High ISO looks rubbish and low ISO is compromised too. What's next: Poor AF in low light?

But why at night ? Surely the dusk/dawn light will be much more flattering.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: It's incredible to see how many people interpret this article in a wrong way.

Some interpret that the article states that the camera performs poorly at high ISO, other say that the DR is bad at high ISO.

The article states that the shadow dynamic range is poor at low ISO compared to other Nikon cameras and you should avoid extreme underexposure of your files otherwise you will have Canon-like files that can't be pushed up without a hefty noise penalty. That's it.

Other than that, the camera has very good high ISO.

As a Nikon shooter shooting manual and underexposing slightly to protect highlights, I often rely on exposure corection and brushes on subjects that I push up in exposure.

As such, I am truly glad I bought the D750 which is a really nice camera for what I need and I'm very disapointed to know that I'll never be able to buy a D5 for my kind of work.

However, as a photographer, I think the shadow issue is exaggerated and I mostly understand DR as highlight rendition.

Rishi, I think you did not understand what I was saying. Everyone's talking DR this, DR that, and all they talk is about how they want to pull 5 stops from the shadows because on a neutral exposure, their camera washes out the highlights. That's not DR, that's a sensor performance parameter, in my opinion.

That's what I was talking about and some cameras are better than others in retaining and rendering the highlights, while others force you to underexpose and start comparing shadows.

Yes, I do pull shadow detail because I'm scared to wash out the highlights, the D700 put this fear in me for 5 years as it was really deep in shadow detail recovery but shallow on the highlights. To you, that camera had a good DR, but for me it had a shallow DR that put me to work.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 12:33 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Is it me or the D4s performs just the same as D5 at ISO 204800? Progress?

You have more megapixels/more detail at the same ISO performance of 204.800 in RAW files and the Jpegs have less chroma noise. Sport pros shoot jpegs so you get more detail and less noise if you're a jpeg shooter.

It's not much but that's how progress works. This isn't a revolution, a D3 coming after the D2x.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 07:21 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: So ISO 50k looks to be the top usable ISO for these raws--not a lot better than the D4S. This looks to be similar to the mistake of releasing the D4 as less of a high ISO body than the D3S.

Hey ISO 50k raws from the Fuji XPro2 are just as usable.

Try to take the D5 and that fuji in a real world low light situation, shoot some pictures then get back to us.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 07:11 UTC
In reply to:

Joachim Gerstl: Ok. High ISO looks rubbish and low ISO is compromised too. What's next: Poor AF in low light?

Sorry, I wasn't considering shooting bears in the dark when I made that comment. I guess that some folks really do need extreme performance. However, as a photographer that loves light and image quality, I wonder, is the dreadful quality of light at night able to produce quality looking pictures ?

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 07:09 UTC
Total: 608, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »