Total: 416, showing: 1 – 20

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

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

starwolfy: I am wondering why Leica emphasize so much the Summarit line on their product pictures.
I have noticed we see a lot of body pictures with the 50 or 35 summarit lens which is to me a bit akward since it is probably not the "sexiest" lenses in the Leica line and in fact their entry level products.

When they're trying to sell you the camera, they want you to be able to see it -- hence putting a smaller lens on it.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 08:43 UTC

Light Pilgrim: DPREVIEW TEAM, just wanted to let you know that when I see other people reply to my posts and click on the direct link which should lead me to the post, I am being transfered to a main page of the article. Impossible to find the post without it, a pain really. I am using it on an iPhone 6s, latest iOS.

I am alone?

Same here. Only solution until they fix it (though it's been like this for ages) is to search for your username in the page, every browser has a within-page search function. If you don't find it, it's because it has scrolled down to the second page of comments.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 05:01 UTC

At this point you have three devices, made by three different companies, physically attached together but nevertheless communicating over a wireless protocol that, albeit now well standardized, was originally developed by a fourth company. It will surely be a smooth user experience, what could possibly wrong.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 18:31 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply

Does anyone know whether this is in preparation to discontinuing development and support? They're still great tools.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2016 at 08:59 UTC as 116th comment | 4 replies
On article How to: iFixit disassembles the Fujifilm X100T (102 comments in total)

That's one smudgy fingerprint in slide 9.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 12:29 UTC as 45th comment

mike80: I'm happy that Sigma is again offering a large aperture telephoto zoom lens for APS-C users, but haven't decided whether I should try to find a copy of Sigma's older 50-150mm f/2.8 OS lens rather than buying this new lens.

The new lens has a shorter zoom range and lacks the stabilization of the 50-150mm f/2.8 OS, but has a larger f/1.8 maximum aperture.

50mm f/1.8 prime lenses are cheap and plentiful, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses, while less common, are still very affordable. What makes this new lens special, aside from having an f/1.8 max. aperture at all focal lengths, is it's f/1.8 max. aperture at 100mm.

Using an online depth of field calculator, I found that at 100mm and f/1.8, if I focused on a subject 10ft away, I'd have about 2.5in of depth of field to work with. At f/2.8 and the same subject distance, I'd have about 4in of depth of field.

What is the practical usefulness of a 50-100mm f/1.8 lens given the limited depth of field at 100mm versus having OS and the 100-150mm range?

mike80: It's great that you have your own style and aesthetic preferences (and, to be honest, I don't do ultra-shallow depth of field as often as I used to -- though I like having the option to do it now and then), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any "practical usefulness", as you put it, for many others who have different preferences.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 07:05 UTC

mike80: I'm happy that Sigma is again offering a large aperture telephoto zoom lens for APS-C users, but haven't decided whether I should try to find a copy of Sigma's older 50-150mm f/2.8 OS lens rather than buying this new lens.

The new lens has a shorter zoom range and lacks the stabilization of the 50-150mm f/2.8 OS, but has a larger f/1.8 maximum aperture.

50mm f/1.8 prime lenses are cheap and plentiful, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses, while less common, are still very affordable. What makes this new lens special, aside from having an f/1.8 max. aperture at all focal lengths, is it's f/1.8 max. aperture at 100mm.

Using an online depth of field calculator, I found that at 100mm and f/1.8, if I focused on a subject 10ft away, I'd have about 2.5in of depth of field to work with. At f/2.8 and the same subject distance, I'd have about 4in of depth of field.

What is the practical usefulness of a 50-100mm f/1.8 lens given the limited depth of field at 100mm versus having OS and the 100-150mm range?

...adding: I do portraits with the 135/2, which would be 90/1.4 on APS-C. You do have to be careful with how you use the depth of field, but when it works it's lovely.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 18:55 UTC
 Total: 416, showing: 1 – 20