Kilrah

Lives in Switzerland Payerne, Switzerland
Works as a Electronics engineer
Joined on Aug 4, 2008
About me:

See gear list

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Azathothh: DNG? Who uses that?

There are as many 3rd party software supporting the proprietary files as there are that support DNGs, or maybe even more... so the probability all of them decide to disappear at the same time is non-existent.
And there's certainly a time where there will be something better than DNG, and everybody stops supporting it as well.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

El Chavo: Exciting news.

Finally some new tech in sensor that will give Sony a run for its money. It is about time.

The black and white sensor alone costs more than an entire Sony top end camera.
So once the color version makes it into a camera the product would probably cost around 3 times as much as Sony's full frame cams. No "run for their money" at all, unless you're in the market for a $10k cam.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 09:56 UTC
On article Grounded: GoPro recalls Karma drone (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: I wish GoPro had instead concentrated on a gimbal stabilization platform that could be used handheld and mounted on any make of drone.

That wouldn't fly (sorry for the pun) today anymore. Integration between the drone controls and the camera is now paramount, and you can't do that without tight coupling between the 2.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 09:51 UTC
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martinka: I feel sorry for GoPro and Karma, but that is what it's called wrong time wrong place. Karma should have come 6 months earlier.

Or you could argue it's much worse, since it's a GoPro with its useless fisheye lens.
Nobody wants fisheyed drone footage since DJI made it easy to supply rectilinear one.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 03:32 UTC
On photo G-BIKO in the Best Aviation Photo ever... Period. challenge (1 comment in total)

Sexy 757!!

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 18:19 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Ilia Snopchenko: "It's got 32 elements in 18 groups." (slide 7)
Looks like someone was a little bit too excited while typing. :) Looks more like 23 to me (which is the same as the similar Canon lens).

Though I wonder what lens could have 32 elements - I think 23-24 is as much as we're getting in consumer products now. :)

Tht's a bit hard given that moving things in a lens requires turning things... which doesn't bode super well when the only half of them ends up in the empty.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

Magnar W: Dpreview reporter is writing: [ ... ] which means you'll really want a grip on an a7-series camera to balance the weight well.

I have never understood why you should add more weight to the camera to balance heavy and large lenses. More weight just makes everything worse.

Keep the left hand under the lens, then there is no balance problms. Then use the right hand to operate the camera, and for some extra support. Press the camera against your forehead to get 3-point support. Also, keep the elbows close to your body.

Trying to balance the camera with a grip placed away from the balance point just seems like wasting a lot of energy to keep the combo sturdy when handheld. Everything is unbalanced.

I am using my Sony A7 like I used my film SLR cameras that was about the same size and weight, with lenses up to 400 mm + a 1.4x teleconverter. Balancing problems? Not when the camera and lens is held like they were designed for.

Yup... I have no problem shooting a 7RII + 70-400G and LA-EA3. That's long and heavy, but putting more weight on my arms with a heavier body or grip would make no sense.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: Nice lens image quality. Surprised to see usable 1.4 aperture.

I have the Samyang and to me it's not usable at 1.4. Way too much PF.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2015 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: I really think you guys need to start to put a break on your highlight and shadow recovery especially on your portrait shots. That makes really difficult to judge the lens characteristics. The pictures looks so nervous and unnatural, it does not go well with the softness of such a fast lens wide open.

If you check the RAWs they're that way out of camera. That lens seems to have very low contrast and tends to illumintate the dark OOF areas.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2015 at 13:49 UTC
On article 1939: England in Color (part 2) (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

jdmeyer: Lovely -- but who took the photos they are both in?

Uh, it says the photos were taken by the poster's uncle.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (727 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Now if Sony could only get rid of the fake prism box on top of their cameras....

Why? It looks great and is very convenient...

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 10:58 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (99 comments in total)

Very good article series, thanks.
One thing that I would have seen added is on the "effect of pixel count" page. The explanation and demonstration of how and why noise varies little depending on pixel count of a given size sensor "when viewed at a common output size" is perfectly valid, BUT this assumption is not really a realistic one to make as the very reason for using higher resolution cameras in practice is typically either to create a larger output or allowing to crop, and there while we'll get more detail on a higher pixel count camera the visible noise will also become greater.

It of course doesn't change anything of what you said, but would be a good explanation to add for a common scenario.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2015 at 14:41 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

ekaton: Why f1.4 for a wide lens? For light gathering ability? But sensor sensitivities take sufficiently care of this these days, at much lower cost. For dof control? This is limited with a wide lens anyway - get a longer lens for real dof control. Just because they can? So it seems.

DOF control. On full frame with apertures larger than F2 you start getting some awesome looks even at 28mm.
You can look at samples from the Sigma 28mm F1.8.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 08:23 UTC
On photo Whuz-there in the My best picture this week challenge (3 comments in total)

Too cool!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2013 at 10:40 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kilrah: That article is vers interesting on 2 points:

- The intended one - know what you want and prepare acordingly, something I still really struggle with, but I try...

- The huge differences in perception between people. Reading the article, and discovering each image by scrolling down after reading the description and intentions was very interesting. By reading and seeing the first attempts I started making myself an image of the intended result - and the final image did not match it at all.
I actually don't like it as it is presented here, I find it flat and dull...
As they are again, I find the "Day 1: Second attempt" version much more interesting (slightly colder WB would be even better IMO).
I've tried reprocessing both to my taste, and there the "final" version would indeed take the edge, but not by much, so that if they were mine I'd have to keep both.

Too long, continued below in reply...

Mixing both points leads to an interesting conclusion - From the photographer's point of view, it is a good thing to know what you want to do, and do what it takes to achieve it, no doubt about that. But on the other side, you can spend days creating an image YOU will be pleased with, but in the view of someone else it might not be worth it, on the opposite he might actually prefer the test shot...

That's what I find difficult about sharing photography. Personal taste has so much importance that sometimes it feels like spending hours on a shot might probably just be useless. I just say that I do it for myself so I'm happy, and at least what I show is consistent with my own feelings. If some others like it - well, that's even better! But I'm happy not to be a professional and thus have to deal with this everyday, in the form of customers who have a different vision from mine for example.

And yes, the very first shot is also my favourite of the lot.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 21:39 UTC
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)

That article is vers interesting on 2 points:

- The intended one - know what you want and prepare acordingly, something I still really struggle with, but I try...

- The huge differences in perception between people. Reading the article, and discovering each image by scrolling down after reading the description and intentions was very interesting. By reading and seeing the first attempts I started making myself an image of the intended result - and the final image did not match it at all.
I actually don't like it as it is presented here, I find it flat and dull...
As they are again, I find the "Day 1: Second attempt" version much more interesting (slightly colder WB would be even better IMO).
I've tried reprocessing both to my taste, and there the "final" version would indeed take the edge, but not by much, so that if they were mine I'd have to keep both.

Too long, continued below in reply...

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 21:39 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sdaniella: i don't like the side box...

max size of 'low' resolution is 960 x 960 but now display scaled down.

max size of 'high' resolution was 2048 x 2048, but only the lower version is displayed and scaled down depending on browser view or any magnification set.

however, the higher resolution url-link 2048x2048 no longer is available separately (i cannot find it anywhere)... but then, it was noticeably compressed after it was uploaded, so the quality is iffy.

i do like the darker framing; earlier i had to 'black frame' my favorite scenic images to best see them, and at least now, it is default frame color instead of that bright white framing which i hated.

:\

The "Download" link is now in the little "gear" menu at the top right of the viewer.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2012 at 09:05 UTC

I always upload photos to Facebook in 1600px wide and tick the "high resolution" box, but still images turn out awful due to very excessive JPG recompression. Every picture ends up blurry/noisy. Hate it.
For that reason I was always using Flickr and never uploading to Facebook. I recently changed my mind though, as uploading to flickr and posting the link on FB simply doesn't have the same impact. No tagging, bad visibility (a link on facebook gets lost in a few minutes, while an album stays easily accessible, and everytime you upload a shot to an existing one it brings it up and gives people an incentve to go and see the rest of the album and comment/like again).

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 22:48 UTC as 57th comment | 1 reply
On photo sunset whisper in the Clouds challenge (1 comment in total)

Awesome!

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2012 at 13:09 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Uwe Skrzypczak: Now it's zero o'clock in Germany! Thanks to all for the big interest on my book wildlife photography.

If anybody has post a link to share the book with others on sites like rapidshare, please accept the rights of the publisher and close or delete the link now.

If you have additional questions to the book, wildlife photography or safari tours, feel free and use the contact button on my website www.serengeti-wildlife.com.
Except i'm not in the bush, you get a quick answer.

Thanks very much

Uwe

Unfortunately the download / whole site was unreachable pretty much all day, didn't manage to get it.
EDIT, links posted by others were the solution. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2011 at 23:12 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »