dkyl

Lives in Singapore Singapore
Has a website at http://swifty.smugmug.com
Joined on Jul 23, 2004

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Sigma should revive Mick Dundee in the marketing campaign.
‘That’s not a lens, THAT’s a lens!’

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2018 at 15:11 UTC as 90th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Lars V: Alright I'm going to guess on price... $1699 stateside. With that much exotic glass it won't be cheap.

It’s $1 per gram

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2018 at 15:07 UTC
On article Sony a7 III sample gallery (554 comments in total)
In reply to:

raminm: I am surprised, DPReview didn't communicate with Sony before publishing these pictures with the artifacts (vertical or horizontal lines, posterization, etc.). This could be a flaw in the camera unit used for taking these pictures or, something else that isn't the fault of the camera model. It's weird.

The production units are out in the wild for early reviewers so we'll know soon enough if it's dpreview's unit or all.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

photographytragic: Why am I nodding in agreement about this ability to limit drones
- but just as uneasy about it too!

Huh?
According to me, as drone abilities increase their potential for misuse whether accidental or deliberate with possible malicious intent becomes greater.
I won't speak for DJI what their intent are but it seems this current move by the manufacturer to be quite sensible.
Seriously, you're comparing security features for a highly maneuverable aerial device with remote control access and capable of a small payload with selfie stick accidents?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2018 at 04:54 UTC
In reply to:

photographytragic: Why am I nodding in agreement about this ability to limit drones
- but just as uneasy about it too!

When someone has a vehicle or plane, there is a registration process for ownership so when someone is detected doing something illegal, it can be traced back to the owner.
Such checks aren't in place for drones currently yet they have even greater abilities to access restricted areas with ease and and without licencing of the operator. So DJI has stepped in to limit it from the manufacturer's side.
I see it mostly as responsible practice.
One needs to be accountable for one's actions. Operating a drone in restricted areas such as within the vicinity of landing aircrafts is as irresponsible and dangerous as a car driver driving onto the runway.
There are a lot of idiots out there that don't think they need to be accountable for their actions.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2018 at 02:28 UTC
In reply to:

photographytragic: Why am I nodding in agreement about this ability to limit drones
- but just as uneasy about it too!

With great(er) power comes great(er) responsibility.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

WGChsv: The fact that they would make such a significant update with no real competition is surprising. I mean, it’s awesome, and great for drone buyers but at this point DJI is competing with themselves. If it were Canon they would sit on the 1” mavic plans until a significant competitor came to the marketplace.

DJI also remains a private company, at least for the time being.
So Frank and team don’t answer to shareholders.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 08:31 UTC
In reply to:

WGChsv: The fact that they would make such a significant update with no real competition is surprising. I mean, it’s awesome, and great for drone buyers but at this point DJI is competing with themselves. If it were Canon they would sit on the 1” mavic plans until a significant competitor came to the marketplace.

‘If it was Canon’ hehe.
It seems DJI is a very different company, not afraid to cannibalize it’s own products.
But seriously, who better to compete with than yourself.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: A 400mm, f/5.6 just seems a waste. The 500mm, f/5.6 has a tough mountain to climb to persuade enthusiasts of the value gained by paying thousands more for what the 200-500 f/5.6 already delivers. The optical quality would need to be excellent, wide open. The AF would need to be obviously improved in comparison with the 200-500. A size, and build quality advantage would also be a plus.

But the price can't be too high. At $5,000 US or more, a used 500mm f/4G VR or new Sigma 500mm f/4 would be stiff competitors to a 500mm f/5.6 PF. They may not be nearly as portable, but they would offer a full stop more light at 500mm, excellent optics, AF and build quality. Paired with a TC, they'd also offer 700mm, f/5.6 with very good optical quality and AF.

The 600 f/5.6 is the only one of the three that really interests me. But, again, if the price is too steep, there are options for a quality 500 f/4 at lower cost.

What if the 400mm 5.6 PF is priced below the 300mm f4 PF?
So the pricing goes 400 f5.6 < 300 f4 < 500 f5.6 < 600 f5.6.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 08:07 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: So why exactly are photo drones a bad thing?

@jaykummar
https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-and-dji-introduce-worlds-first-100-megapixel/

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: There goes my back...and bank balance...

Hurting one’s back often impacts negatively on one's bank balance.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 10:18 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

dkyl: I can't see FL markings on the lens barrel and there's a W and T lever so I assume this is a power zoom, not manual.
How long does it take to zoom from the widest FL to full tele? If this info is not available, can previous RX10 owners chime in how long the previous gen takes to go from wide to tele.
Thanks in advance.

@Wye Yes, the FL markings are on the zoom barrel as it extends. Sorry I should've been clearer in that I was looking for a zoom ring with FL markings that might indicate you can manually zoom. I guess not then?

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

dkyl: I can't see FL markings on the lens barrel and there's a W and T lever so I assume this is a power zoom, not manual.
How long does it take to zoom from the widest FL to full tele? If this info is not available, can previous RX10 owners chime in how long the previous gen takes to go from wide to tele.
Thanks in advance.

Having a quick skim through the RX10III review now. Can't seem to find it.
I don't need an exact figure. I just want to know a ball park. Are we talking 3 sec, 6 sec, 10 sec, 15 sec?

Edit: Answering my own question. Can't find it in the reviews but in the forums, someone is saying the faster setting takes around 6 sec from 24-600mm. On the slower setting it takes around double that.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 08:45 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (321 comments in total)

I can't see FL markings on the lens barrel and there's a W and T lever so I assume this is a power zoom, not manual.
How long does it take to zoom from the widest FL to full tele? If this info is not available, can previous RX10 owners chime in how long the previous gen takes to go from wide to tele.
Thanks in advance.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 07:26 UTC as 51st comment | 12 replies

Question: if you ETTR (without clipping any channels) but for the given scene the resultant brightness is too high. Does bringing it back in post processing result in better tonality compared to a shot that was exposed to have the desired brightness to begin with.
If so, wouldn't this method warrant using a higher bit depth?
My scenario doesn't have to be a very high DR scene. In fact most scenes are not that high and I'm specifically asking about these normal scenes without the very high DR but purposely exposing it to the right in RAW and bringing the brightness back in post. I'm interested in how to maximize smooth and subtle tones.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2017 at 14:59 UTC as 29th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

straylightrun: How about making some higher end APS-C emount lenses instead of solely focusing on FF?

@Entropy. Thanks for the informative post

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: How about making some higher end APS-C emount lenses instead of solely focusing on FF?

@Dr Blackjack: True. But I wonder if they can maintain the same optical formulae and shrink it much further if they only need to cover the APS-C image circle. Technically the diameter of glass needed would be smaller but by how much, I wonder.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

dkyl: It would be interesting to see the eligible products in each category and see which other product it beat out.

Yea I had a quick gander at the eligibility page and it's not that straight forward. Anyways it becomes pretty tricky to track all the releases and availability for European market so it'd be really useful and provide better context if they could list all the contenders for each category.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 12:49 UTC

It would be interesting to see the eligible products in each category and see which other product it beat out.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 03:21 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Dr Blackjack: Nooooo don't become a rumors website!!!!! If you must make this a sidebar post

Then you know nothing!! Jon... I mean Barney Britton

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »