mike earussi

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 7, 2007

Comments

Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MiraShootsNikon: One word for this article: No.

I own an iPhone 7 Plus, and I shoot it in "Portrait Mode" often. Compared to recent "real cameras"--even many small-sensor p&s varieties--it sucks. Obviously so.

Yes, the iPhone's photographs are smartly processed--hard-pinned black points, bright primary colors, blue skies.

But the photographs (from either lens-camera module) offer *no detail*, and you don't need to be a committed pixel-peeper to notice this. The phone gives you a 12 MP file, but really the camera resolves only about 2.

As for "Portrait Mode," the background blur is an achievement, but the smaller "telephoto" module sensor is horribly noisy in any light but bang-on broad sun. Images photographed in daylight shadows look like ISO 25600 from a recent m4/3 sensor, processed with ham-fisted NR.

Vic Gundotra's shots above make my case. His kids are adorable, but even at a tiny web size the photos are a blurry mess. "Hard not to call these results stunning?" Nobody's even in focus, dude!

They're his kids, that makes the photo stunning.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 04:43 UTC

You have made a very good case as to why Nikon and Canon (and Leica?) should enter the smartphone market just so they can stay in business.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 04:25 UTC as 102nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

miggylicious: smartphones/tablets will eventually kill-off everything including cameras and laptops. its already happening.

You're right. dpreview isn't focused on computers, but I'll bet there's already been an article somewhere lamenting the death of the "entry level" laptop due to smartphones.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 03:43 UTC

You push the button and the smartphone does the rest. With the average smartphone user rarely (if ever) making prints and seldom posting photos larger than Facebook size it's hardly surprising that entry level ILCs are dying.

The market is dividing further into extremely high end and extremely low end cameras, good for the average user, bad for the camera companies which will continue to see their market shrink.

The only positive aspect of fewer amateurs using entry level ILCs is that for those few who make their living in photography the quality gap between what the average smartphone photographer can take and the professional will increase.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 03:39 UTC as 106th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

MiraShootsNikon: One word for this article: No.

I own an iPhone 7 Plus, and I shoot it in "Portrait Mode" often. Compared to recent "real cameras"--even many small-sensor p&s varieties--it sucks. Obviously so.

Yes, the iPhone's photographs are smartly processed--hard-pinned black points, bright primary colors, blue skies.

But the photographs (from either lens-camera module) offer *no detail*, and you don't need to be a committed pixel-peeper to notice this. The phone gives you a 12 MP file, but really the camera resolves only about 2.

As for "Portrait Mode," the background blur is an achievement, but the smaller "telephoto" module sensor is horribly noisy in any light but bang-on broad sun. Images photographed in daylight shadows look like ISO 25600 from a recent m4/3 sensor, processed with ham-fisted NR.

Vic Gundotra's shots above make my case. His kids are adorable, but even at a tiny web size the photos are a blurry mess. "Hard not to call these results stunning?" Nobody's even in focus, dude!

The point of the article is not that smartphones are equal to entry level cameras but that they are "good enough" to satisfy an uncritical mass audience.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 03:28 UTC

This case exemplifies why so many professional photographers I know refuse to do weddings (except for friends and for free). The potential headaches aren't worth it.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 14:49 UTC as 31st comment

What this actually means is that anyone is free to steal your work and use it anyway they want, and unless you pay $35/image and wait up to 13 months it's a waste of your time to sue because you won't get anything.

Nice to know how well the government is protecting our interests.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 02:13 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

gipper51: Lovely looking printer. Perhaps someday when I win the lottery...

So you can buy a house big enough to put it in? :)

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

Christop82: Wow! As soon as I can scrape up 50 grand I'm buying one. Then I'll have to scrape up another 20 grand for the rest of the equipment to make my 50 grand body functional.

And because it's so small and light it easily replaces my Olympus outfit. ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 15:09 UTC

Nice, now if I just had $50K and a Sherpa to pack it around for me when I go out...

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 15:07 UTC as 41st comment
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike earussi: I'm really sorry you were too lazy to get the best out of the camera by deciding to use DNG/ACR processing instead of using Sigma's own SPP software. There may be only a slight improvement from the H's regular raw file vs DNG, but there is a big difference when using it in SFD mode, which can only be processed using SPP and would easily rival any 50mp MF body both in DR and resolution, making it the cheapest "MF" camera on the market. If you're going to test a camera in the first place at least take the time to do it right.

Richard, my main complaint is that you didn't test SFD mode. Why?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike earussi: I'm really sorry you were too lazy to get the best out of the camera by deciding to use DNG/ACR processing instead of using Sigma's own SPP software. There may be only a slight improvement from the H's regular raw file vs DNG, but there is a big difference when using it in SFD mode, which can only be processed using SPP and would easily rival any 50mp MF body both in DR and resolution, making it the cheapest "MF" camera on the market. If you're going to test a camera in the first place at least take the time to do it right.

Richard: OK, I can understand that, but testing the shot capacity used to be a normal part of dpreview's tests anyway.

But that still leaves unanswered why you didn't bother to test the camera in it's much higher quality SFD mode. I realize SPP is a pain but you also had to use Pentax's software to test pixel shift.

You also make a blanket statement that these is no real difference between processing the DNG in ACR vs. the RAW in SPP. How do you know that, did you do a direct comparison? If so it would have been nice to see that posted.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike earussi: I'm really sorry you were too lazy to get the best out of the camera by deciding to use DNG/ACR processing instead of using Sigma's own SPP software. There may be only a slight improvement from the H's regular raw file vs DNG, but there is a big difference when using it in SFD mode, which can only be processed using SPP and would easily rival any 50mp MF body both in DR and resolution, making it the cheapest "MF" camera on the market. If you're going to test a camera in the first place at least take the time to do it right.

Fuhteng: S-HI is a totally different mode to SFD. S-HI merely doubles the pixel count whereas SFD is a combination of DR and noise stacking which dramatically ups the output quality. It takes seven separate shots at different exposures increasing the DR and lowering the noise in the process. This one feature allows a "poor," or at least less financially well endowed, studio or landscape photographer to duplicate the quality of a 50mp MF camera at much less expense, and the primary reason why I'd consider buying one.

Again, this camera is a "one trick pony," it does one thing only, but it does it very well.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 20:15 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike earussi: I'm really sorry you were too lazy to get the best out of the camera by deciding to use DNG/ACR processing instead of using Sigma's own SPP software. There may be only a slight improvement from the H's regular raw file vs DNG, but there is a big difference when using it in SFD mode, which can only be processed using SPP and would easily rival any 50mp MF body both in DR and resolution, making it the cheapest "MF" camera on the market. If you're going to test a camera in the first place at least take the time to do it right.

No, the review comes across as a rushed job, they didn't even shoot it enough to run down one battery. Besides, what good does it do to test a camera if you don't test it at it's highest quality. It would have only taken a couple of extra hours to test SFD mode and they couldn't be bothered, but they DID find the time to check the Pixel Shift mode on the Pentax and Olympus bodies.

And "industry standard" is BS. Nobody shoots their camera at some nebulous industry standard if they're wanting the best out of it, they do everything they can to maximize image quality. And it's the max image quality that is the only rational for buying a Foveon chipped camera in the first place, so by not testing it at it's best they undercut the very reason anyone would have for buying one.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 19:32 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (637 comments in total)

I'm really sorry you were too lazy to get the best out of the camera by deciding to use DNG/ACR processing instead of using Sigma's own SPP software. There may be only a slight improvement from the H's regular raw file vs DNG, but there is a big difference when using it in SFD mode, which can only be processed using SPP and would easily rival any 50mp MF body both in DR and resolution, making it the cheapest "MF" camera on the market. If you're going to test a camera in the first place at least take the time to do it right.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 19:06 UTC as 126th comment | 18 replies
On article Looking back: Canon's eye-controlled focus (210 comments in total)

I also miss it. I had the Elan 7e and when it worked (not all the time) it was great, incredibly convenient and fast. I still don't know why Canon discontinued it. For those who don't like it they can just turn it off. If Canon brought it back I'd be tempted to buy a body just for that.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 14:30 UTC as 101st comment

Very impressive. The ultimate resume if you're wanting video work. And the music was excellent as well.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 01:40 UTC as 4th comment

I've always considered any photo contest a scam if they charged an entrance fee. This guy was just more blatant (and stupid) than others. At the very least he should have used an alias.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 18:34 UTC as 8th comment

Hasselblad tried this BS with their repackaged Sony cameras, which didn't work so well. There just aren't that many fools in the world to make it profitable.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 18:05 UTC as 4th comment

I remember Modern Photography before it was (forcibly) merged with Popular Photography in the 80's, an excellent magazine with excellent equipment tests and articles. Popular Photography never had quite the same degree of professionalism and their refusal to keep up with the newer online equipment testing sites signaled their irrelevance and inevitable death years before it actually happened (today).

Adapt and improve or perish is today's mantra, and Popular Photography failed at both. Even though it signals an end of an era, its lack of substantive content means it really won't be missed.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 05:37 UTC as 126th comment | 1 reply
Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »