Total: 422, showing: 1 – 20
On article Why brand market share shouldn't matter to you (552 comments in total)

dlb41: To me the most important considerations are reliability and support. Most modern cameras take high quality images so that's not a major issue.

*All* modern cameras take high quality images. They'll keep improving in ways that, when added over many years, will still be spectacular. However, the rate of improvement is now much slower, so when a particular brand falls two or three years behind it makes little difference. Reliability and support, however, will continue to matter a lot for some people, though not that much for amateurs -- which is to say to most people.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2018 at 04:47 UTC

David610: Does this lens cover Fujifilm GFX-50s? The specifications are such it seems to be a medium format lens. I am surprised no one has commented on the bokeh. In the sample photos it looks a tad nervous. I would have thought that for a 50mm f/1.2 lens buttery smooth out of focus rendering was way more important than pixel peeking. It does seem to be difficult to provide the best bokeh with aspherical element lenses. Manual focus of fast lenses on Canon/Nikon bodies is difficult without specific split image or microprism focusing screens. This might work better on a Sony A7/9 or Fujifilm GFX-50s with EVF.

PhozoKosmos — have you tried using the Canon 50/1.2 with manual focus? I find it very hard to get the focus right.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 01:38 UTC

SantaFeBill: Perhaps DPR posted this put-on because we need a laugh in these times.
If you go to the site and read the description, the language seems to be firmly tongue-in-cheek.
But there is a very serious issue of how AI will eliminate the need - or interest - for many activities that had been done by humans, as various AIs become able to do them better.
People still play chess, but would anyone still strive to become a Grand Master when you know a computer can beat you?

We have been able to build cars (and can now build antropomorphic robots) that go faster than humans, but there’s more people working harder than ever to train for the olympics — and a good bit of viewer interest too.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 01:26 UTC

Ruy Penalva: It's shame! USA abuse of espionage around the world. Promotes state coups. Invade sovereign nations but are worried of an innocent cell phone! Chinese routers are already prohibited there. How they explain Russia could elect Trump that is not a real man but a Putin avatar teletransported to White House?

What is this communism you speak of? China is now a hyper-capitalist system, just an authoritarian, non-democratic, state-steered one. Putin is maybe vaguely closer to communism, given his personal background and his policies (even there, it's a stretch), but he's Trump's and the GOP's suggar daddy.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 12:50 UTC

shutterhappens: What Huawei and the other "banned" companies don't understand is, they need to hire lobbyists in the USA.

And do some election hacking in favor of Republican Party trai... I mean candidates.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2018 at 12:44 UTC

Sirandar: LOL .... the picture would have been better and more appropriate if it happened later ;) Did the earth shake for you too?

What do you think was going on during the next picture taken later that night of the volcano spewing lava?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 01:37 UTC

The incident, not "the incidence". \end of grammar police\

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:44 UTC as 18th comment

alandalsong: If you can still touch the sink while operating the camera, the solution is not really effective. The thermal contact between the source and sink is so poor, it hardly helps.
Just my opinion.
Flame on!

fatdeeman: I imagine that the back of the camera is designed as a heatsink (where else to dissipate the heat from?), so attaching the external heatsink there could be a very efficient to cool the sensor. Re. fans, it's a cute solution, but requires power and makes noise (never a good thing with video).

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 16:59 UTC

DPPMetro: The awful style of this video is a testament to the self-centeredness of the millenials and hipsters, where it's all about themselves and the entitlement they have to put themselves up on a pedestal and show the world how great they are and that they are very special snowflakes and a gift to the world.

The video is absolute garbage and DPR could have at least told us what the time was to skip to.

"People still use the word "snowflakes"?" -- In my experience, the only people using the word are the actual weirdo snowflakes. Like DPPMetro. I mean, who has such vulnerable sensibilities that they get their panties in such a twist and are so personally offended by perfectly harmless things others choose to do (and that they can easily ignore) that they need to post insults, both personal and to a whole generation? Weird snowflake.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 21:10 UTC

derfotograf: The camera just has been released, and 8 people already clicked 'I had it', 5 people 'I own it'.

Please, can anyone tell me how and where these 13 people purchased a camera?

Or is this the typical brainless hobbyist who just wants to brag in public?

It's what happens when you accidentally click on "I own it" instead of "I want it" (or just click it by plain accident when distractedly poking around for info on the camera), and then correct the mistake by retiring it from your gear list. With tens of thousands of readers, you just need less than 0.1% of mistakes to see this.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 18:47 UTC

cosinaphile: will the red and green together give me the yellow lens i crave?

Yellow is primary if you're working with subtractive colors (mixing paints), for additive colors (mixing light sources) you get yellow by mixing red and green.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_color

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (246 comments in total)

Victor Engel: Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

That is indeed strong longitudinal chromatic aberration -- I believe this isn't measured in these tests, they only measure lateral chromatic aberration. I think that, given the number and increasing influence of technical testing web sites on what lenses people choose to buy, there's an increasing pressure for manufacturers to "design for the test". This is still an awesome lens, though.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 05:59 UTC

Suddenly the Canon 17mm T/S feels like a bargain.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 06:22 UTC as 34th comment

Ansel Spear: Why is everybody calling this a smile? When you look at a larger image, this is clearly a grimace as he sees how close his rival is.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case: at this point Usain Bolt was pulling away and he knew it (after, as usual, starting behind). Smiling while making that level of effort (incomprehensible to mere mortals like us) is bound to come across as a bit of a grimace.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 10:20 UTC

Fotogeneticist: We need to stop using the term "mirrorless" to name these latest cameras. Imagine if we called cars "horseless carriages". The image follows a different path from the scene to the sensor to the finder. We used to call cameras with two lenses Twin Lens Reflex. Then Hasselblad ushered in the Single Lens Reflex. I propose Digital Sensor Reflex (DSR). The image goes directly to the sensor through the lens and the sensor "reflexes" the image to the finder. TLR --> SLR --> DSLR --> DSR.

steelhead3: It's already the case that cameras with mirrors are designated based on that. That's what the R (for reflex) in SLR and DSLR means: the reflection of an image in a mirror.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 18:04 UTC

left eye: Changing lenses on a mirror-less camera without a focal-place shutter, in my experience introduces dust to the sensor with alarming regularity.

With a sensor this big, dust will be 'a subject', as will the safe regular perfect cleaning of such an expensive sensor - without damaging it. I'm getting nervous just thinking about it!

If you look inside, I believe many (most?) mirrorless cameras keep the shutter open when you're changing lenses. Maybe because it's better for shutter durability to have the spring without tension by default, maybe because it's actually much easier to damage a mechanical shutter (a delicate precision mechanism) by touching it accidentally than it is to damage the very hard glass on top of the optical stack in front of the sensor.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 15:13 UTC

Fotogeneticist: We need to stop using the term "mirrorless" to name these latest cameras. Imagine if we called cars "horseless carriages". The image follows a different path from the scene to the sensor to the finder. We used to call cameras with two lenses Twin Lens Reflex. Then Hasselblad ushered in the Single Lens Reflex. I propose Digital Sensor Reflex (DSR). The image goes directly to the sensor through the lens and the sensor "reflexes" the image to the finder. TLR --> SLR --> DSLR --> DSR.

The "reflex" in TLR and SLR refers precisely to the mirror. Hint: a mirror reflects light. And yes, TLRs also had (fixed) mirrors in their viewfinders. For decades we used the term SLR, and the "single lens" part of the name didn't make sense either except in the context of previous cameras that had two lenses. I'm not a big fan of "mirrorless" either, and something like "Digital Finder Camera" might make more sense, but at this point it's moot: "mirrorless" is in general use and here to stay.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 15:07 UTC

Random Photographer: It costs GBP. 160 (~$200 USD) to get rid of the Leica logo... Let that sink in. Dr_Jon: I don't think it's quite that. This would be like Porsche charging money for leaving out a default option, even though it saves them money to do so (e.g., don't have to pay Bosch for the part). Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 12:37 UTC In reply to: Random Photographer: It costs GBP. 160 (~$200 USD) to get rid of the Leica logo... Let that sink in.

For those who didn't visit the website: this is not a joke. Leica actually charges an additional 200 bucks in order to skip the step of gluing the red dot sticker to the camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 08:52 UTC