Joined on Dec 15, 2009


Total: 276, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

alextardif: Given the crazy low price for what is, presumably, going to be a top tier 24-70 F2.8 I'm surprised this isn't making a bigger splash in the community... I can't wait to try this puppy out on A7Rii.

@bmxer241 I missed that, thanks. This lens is an interesting option.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 07:19 UTC
In reply to:

alextardif: Given the crazy low price for what is, presumably, going to be a top tier 24-70 F2.8 I'm surprised this isn't making a bigger splash in the community... I can't wait to try this puppy out on A7Rii.

The trouble is there's a massive used market. Canikon's older 24-70s are cheaper and very good. If you absolutely need the best, then you can probably justify the extra for the new Canikons and not have to worry so much about future compatibility and depreciation.

Having said that Sigma deserve to do well. The new 24-70 looks great. I used to own their 24-60 and it was brilliant but I always had micro-focus issues - had I owned a newer body with mf adjust I never would have sold it.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2017 at 07:10 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: Compelling case? Are you kidding me? First my respects/ it's a cool tech demo. No, it's not a good representation f a good game. In fact it's quite horrible as a mario game. Just watching the video makes me dizzy.

This is a game experience that was designed for a 2d screen with tight controls and action. Of course it won't translate to AR when trying to do a direct translation of the game like this

You need a good game designer to create a new version that makes sense.

Also dpreview- please. Play Mario and understand video games / video game design a little better.

I don't really know what you mean Raist3d. I imagine millions of families would pay good money for this kind of experience. It would turn every garden into an infinitely exciting play castle. Sure there could be other games demoed, but Mario is such a fun character with great music, it is a good way to build interest. I remember playing sword fighting with a stick as a child. Imagine Prince of Persia or Ghouls and Goblins in the backyard! I would not advocate play in public though, too much risk of death by car, train or whatever.

Also I really like the idea of the graphics card not needing to recreate reality, since for example the trees and the grass are already there in real life. I can see AR being used in special paid-for experiences. If properly integrated into a purpose-built zone / garden / building, you could have something very special. Perhaps this could be the basis for a new theme park or next-gen arcade.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

Neez: The 32 vs 64bit architecture doesn't make much of a difference for most people. It's the fact that the Annapurna cpu is an ARM processor vs the intel which is x86. This make a huge difference because apps have to be written for either. ARM is much more limited in apps, it has nothing to do with business apps are mentioned on this review, the app store is far more limited in general.

However, most photographers probably won't care about apps. They just want a huge file server with raid redundancy incase a drive fails. Both will be fast, and either will do the job just fine.

I use dropbox as a backup for my home photos. You can get 1TB per year for very good money, much cheaper than a NAS and its resistant to fire / theft etc. I think cloud is going to be a better balance than NAS for most home users, and it gives a sense of invulnerability that no amount of hard disks in your home can give you!

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 14:37 UTC
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Except for the bee shot, I can't find another shot that would not have been better served by another type of lens.

I really hope Joshua has taken aditional optics, as this is the kind of trip that would be a pity to have been wasted on such a uninspiring optical tool.

What is better is obviously subjective, but I personally find fisheyes look more like what I see with my eyes for some reason.
I used to have a non zoom 15mm fisheye, and I loved it on a crop body. Great for close portraits in my opinion, as they don't distort like a typical wide.

But here's the thing, if you don't like the effect, you can adjust the amount of rectilinearity (real word?!) in post process. Lightroom makes this easy for example. You can do the same in reverse to create a fisheye effect from a normal wide, but it never looks quite right.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 19:16 UTC
On article How water droplets came to life for a Gatorade ad (103 comments in total)

Wow. That is stunning!

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2017 at 19:07 UTC as 40th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

MatchencoSouth: You write about Olympus cameras quite often. Why not to take a look back at the first DSLR of mine, my beloved and precious Olympus E-1? Would be an exciting reading! (I read the DP Review's Throwback Thursday articles every week and I find them extremele interesting!)

It's strange to say it, but it was an exciting period of camera creation. There was something new every few months, and sometimes they seemed beautiful works of design. I admired some of those camera bodies in the same way that a couple of generations before me it was common to be excited about locomotives.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:40 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

davesurrey: If anyone's interested in picking up one of these there's a used one on ebay at the moment for $500 !!!

Gee whiz, you could buy a lot of used dslr for that! I sold one for around that price in 2006!

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:36 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Olympus, I am honestly waiting for C8080 modern incarnation:
- larger sensor - 1" or could be MFT
- in body stabilization
- could be ted bit larger with 24 - 240 mm lens is enough - no need in superzoom
- GPS and wifi.

Since when is a 10x optical zoom not a super zoom? What mad world are we living on? I wouldn't usually consider any zoom over 3x!

Plus when you turn it on, you need to be able to shoot at 35 or 50mm equivalent in a hurry, not 24mm, in my opinion. That was another problem of the c8080.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (105 comments in total)

I had it, my first camera. Build quality was lovely and some really beautiful images...but it was ridiculously slow. I learned to hate the lever-based zoom, and raw file saving locked up the camera to the point of making it impossible. I wished I had bought the Konica Minota Dimage a200 instead, or perhaps even better, the Canon equivalents of Pro 1, or (later) G series. The Canon if I recall correctly may have been better at video also, and had a firmware upgrade to improve focus.

I had obsessed over image quality, poring over reviews. It was a purchase that taught me the importance of useability over absolute image quality. Still the look of that massive lens was to die for, and the Olympus colours were lovely.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:25 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

GiovanniB: Boring. Why not f1.8 or f2.0? The Sony FE 28 f2.0 remains more versatile and is small and light enough for me.

I kind of agree. This is the first lens that has got my attention for the Sony system. But I'm left wondering what is the point when a Canon or Nikon 35mm f2 potentially does a better job in almost the same size package. It does look a bit smaller though, and these days high iso means f2.8 is enough for practically any shot.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 08:53 UTC
In reply to:

Kwick1: I agree with the comment that this truly isn't Virtual Reality. Until a true Holodeck is developed, where all of your senses are used and it is truly immersive, we won't have VR. We just have 360 video, and crappy quality video at that.

Have you seen some of the Skyrim mods for PC; there are so-called 'screen archers' who play the game only to create art from screenshots at resolutions that can only be played at 5-10 frames per second on current hardware?
They can be incredible, and essentially photo realistic or to coin an old red dwarf phrase - 'better than life'. People can essentially create 3d models and faces that look like specific real people, famous or otherwise and have them interact in-game, and the objects and landscapes can likewise appear realistic. This is possible due to the huge number of hours people have put into creating and sharing high resolution textures.

I kind of agree with you about the holodeck thing, but you might be surprised just what kind of level of photo-realistic graphics and animations are viable with current or near-current technology. Not every house can fit a holodeck, but a VR headset that does something relatively similar -eyes and ears not touch - is achievable now /next year

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

coase: Since both VR and 3D make me dizzy and annoyed and I know I'm not alone in this, it will have to come a looonnngg way before I'll even try one again.

I dislike the term fanboy as it seems rather derogatory. You are free of course to ignore my comments, which I had hoped you would find interesting.

Certainly I do think some 3D is good, as do many others, as proven by cinema ticket sales. And yes, actually a good home theatre setup is typically a better experience than any of the cinemas I have been to, especially for audio. We seem to be in agreement that some people do not like 3D. As a matter of fact, I watched something at a children's theme park cinema the other day in 3D and hated it. It didn't help that the glasses were covered in chocolate from the previous user, but the image was dark and the glasses and picture combined to be low resolution, nothing at all like the 3D most of us see everyday with our eyes, and which can be replicated by a good 3D setup or VR.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

coase: Since both VR and 3D make me dizzy and annoyed and I know I'm not alone in this, it will have to come a looonnngg way before I'll even try one again.

The Epson works with Samsung 3D glasses, which probably means the active Samsung TVs were / are fine also now. The TV industry in particular seem particularly capable of this type of mess-up with their manufacturing business focus, and the type of competition in the sector.

I don't really have a solution for it, I only wish they had the good sense to keep the features they invest in for longer, so as to allow people's opinions to catch up with their iterative technological advances.

Then again, VR is a neater solution than 3D tv/projection in many ways, since the viewing angle is predefined by the headset itself rather than expecting the consumer to project the image /mount the TV low enough for a good on-axis presentation.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

coase: Since both VR and 3D make me dizzy and annoyed and I know I'm not alone in this, it will have to come a looonnngg way before I'll even try one again.

Bad experiences with first generation(s) of tech is the problem, with lots of companies chasing the same thing and doing it imperfectly.

It was the same with 3d as you say. I swore for years (over a decade) I would wait for a 4k 3D passive TV so as to avoid headaches etc. Finally LG released some OLEDs in 2015/2016 that could do this and they are apparently excellent for 3D. Unfortunately they were only available as OLEDs and several thousand pounds. This year, none of LG's or any other manufacturer has 3D built in, and although 3D blu rays are no longer ridiculously priced, the consumers (so it is thought) just don't care anymore.

This year I bought a 3D (and 2d obviously) projector, an expensive Epson tw9300, despite the fact it has active 3d technology rather than passive. i.e. could induce headaches. But Epson have increased the refresh rates on the glasses to something like 120/140hz so the result is a headache free, perfect 3D experience on a massive's amazing!

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 15:09 UTC

I guess the joke is too high brow given the predominantly confused, vitriolic comments. There's a sad irony.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 07:11 UTC as 72nd comment

One shouldn't ignore the many used lenses already in the market and in photographers bags. Canon L and high quality Nikon lenses still in use probably value billions of dollars/euros. The quality of many such lenses combined with slr or mirrorless body is likely good enough for most imaginable purposes. It is an obvious competitive advantage for Canon and Nikon especially to cater to the demand to use these legacy lenses with slr or mirrorless or whatever.

I don't see the problem personally.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 10:23 UTC as 204th comment

I guess 2nd hand prices will drop by about 982+ euros plus bother reduced demand due to imperfect customer they'll still cost a gazillion euros then.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 09:45 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Mal69: 100 million to 1 contrast ratio......translation....real world figures of between 1000:1 to 3000:1 contrast ratio.

Naturally. But this is a reasonably useful consumer signal in an imperfect market is it not? Competitors being how they are, each company must signal how their device compares, at least until legislation and enforcement occurs - which let's be honest is not the most important thing in the world right now and so unlikely to happen, not to mention it would arguably just increase prices...

My takeaway from this figure is that the contrast ratio is really really good for this type of technology. It also hints at higher brightness for HDR editing. That's all!

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 08:13 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: What kind of news is this? These specifications look like those you can read on the packaging of a cheap chinese tablet. No panel type? 100 000 000:1 contrast? Really? This is either an OLED (in which case one has to ask why they don't brag about it), or it's that kind of "dynamic" contrast, i.e. fake. I have learned to be skeptical of such announcements, because usually when manufacturers leave out key info (and make up unsubstantiated numbers) it means their product is just a common and uninteresting piece of hardware.

Please, dpr, don't leave out the most important specs about a possibly useful device.

If you know all that then why get upset about it? Not all companies reveal the innards of their products, and stated contrast ratios have been consumer signals rather than absolutes for years.

A five second Google search shows other articles stating it is an LED of some sort - most wouldn't be interested in OLED anyway unless the price was the standout message. From my point of view this is an interesting monitor which could be a contender to replace my excellent but non-4K Dell u3014, or perhaps simply increase competition and reduce prices in the market.

Incidentally I like how the bezel seems to be free of logos.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 08:02 UTC
Total: 276, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »